Do you like to work harder for less?

Keirouen

Keirouen

Community Member
MBTI
intj
It's been shown in economic studies that people work harder less for monetary gains but more so for social acknowledgement (percieved or genuine) and life meaning.

The contrafreeloading effect

-You have a basket of fresh apples freely available to you

-You also have somebody ready to give you an identical apple as a reward for performing a simple task

Most people and animals go for option two. Humans work harder for less. It's ingrained in our psyches to feel satisfaction from an interaction and the acknowledgement of another person rather than from an easy reward.

Do you agree?

Can you think of a time you picked the more difficult path to the same result?

Are we humans predisposed to enjoy the journey rather than the reward?
 
I think it depends on the person.

In that apple situation, my thought process would be:
okay, here's a bushel of apples. I'm going to take one, since it looks like they are here for people to enjoy them.
*person comes up and offers me another apple*
well, this is kind of odd...why would he offer me that apple when there are tons of apples right here? this seems a little weird...I'm a little wary of his motives. I'm going to eat the apple I got from the basket and ask him what he wants.
*asks man what he needs help with*
okay, he doesn't seem to have foul intentions...it seems he just assumed he would need to offer me an apple to get me to help him.
still, I'll keep my apple from the basket, and let him eat his own apple, and I'll help him anyway
 
Keirouen said:
It's been shown in economic studies that people work harder less for monetary gains but more so for social acknowledgement (percieved or genuine) and life meaning.

....

Can you think of a time you picked the more difficult path to the same result?

Are we humans predisposed to enjoy the journey rather than the reward?
Click to expand...

Well, I think humans are predisposed to trying to create or find meaning when we are bored or otherwise faced with a meaningless set of tasks to do. Challenging oneself and getting stimulation from one's environment is fun, like a game. Even animals do it. It's like an endorphin brain hack, which humans/animals have probably become predisposed to be able to learn to do because we need it. Probably stimulates brain development or something.

In the case of humans, just imagine what the alternative is: working to survive, only to work some more. For no reason. That's called barely getting by.
 
I think this only applies much where it's not for absolute survival. A lot of people feel forced to work because they have to - if they don't they will starve.

So in a case like that it's not really about rewards (unless you consider "continued living" as a reward) and there is no basket of freely available apples. The apple given for completing a task is the only apple they're ever going to get.
 
I would only speak of my own experience here because I dont know the study and it sounds like some kind of Freakanomics style doublespeak going on here, the sort of thing execs love to hear because it adds up to pay cuts and a pat on the head for subordinates.

I DEFINITELY factor in the reward, DEFINITELY, I know that someone at my work, which is shift work for all the core team and occasionally the management, who was a manager told me that one their pay scale working longer hours, the shift work, meant that they could be in a higher tax bracket and they would refuse to work it as it would not pay to work it. I dont think they have refused it, I wouldnt know if they had, although they have said a lot which indicates that they find the work particularly challenging and personally trying at the best of times. In an ideal world I would do the exact same thing if I found that working harder meant I got paid the same or less. Although I would not like ot let down my colleagues or the clients, there is a non-monetary but none the less important factor there.

I dont see that as the same as accepting a lower or the same monetary reward for harder work plus recognition or acknowledgement. There's probably deep seated reasons for it but I dont really like constant positive feedback, it means squat and it also makes me suspiscious. It reminds me of Stakahovichism (spelling) in which the Soviet union had "star workers" who were capable of shifting more coal than anyone else alive or stuff of that kind. He was working harder to save colleagues from suffering under worsening conditions.
 
sprinkles said:
I think this only applies much where it's not for absolute survival. A lot of people feel forced to work because they have to - if they don't they will starve.

So in a case like that it's not really about rewards (unless you consider "continued living" as a reward) and there is no basket of freely available apples. The apple given for completing a task is the only apple they're ever going to get.
Click to expand...

There is a coercive or compulsive thing about work, especially in the english speaking world were Weber convincingly argued that the culture aftershocks of protestant work ethics are still felt strongly but its cultural more than its struggle for existence at the subsistence level.

I've read about middle class authors who've survived for a year on less than a pound a day, they did it in order to write a book and I'm sure there's plenty of caveats if you look into it but the point was they thought it was doable and to all intents and purposes succeeded in proving it was doable.

I've no idea how much their standards of living took a hit but they survived alright, there was probably a great deal of dependency upon charity and others altruism and I dont know how sustainable it all would be either but in reality take all creature comforts out of it and I bet that its possible to live alright on state assistance or some other means without working to subsist.
 
With much of the free food experiementing done in animals, they've often found that the animals still go for the free food. It's difficult to parse out the actual effects, because it's really based on learning and developing learning behaviours through condition/reward system. Although of it has to do with intermittent and/or continual reinforcement schedules - which are shown to be extremely successful ways to adapt or produce behaviours.

However, when you get into humans, it becomes even more difficult. If you think about it, the second option has more of a reward, an apple + the feeling of receiving an award/recognition for your hard work. If I had a choice to go to a giant bowl and pick out a nubblet of kibble any time, or go over to a bar, press it down, receive a nubblet and a pat on the head, I would totally push the bar 100% of the time!
 
say what said:
With much of the free food experiementing done in animals, they've often found that the animals still go for the free food. It's difficult to parse out the actual effects, because it's really based on learning and developing learning behaviours through condition/reward system. Although of it has to do with intermittent and/or continual reinforcement schedules - which are shown to be extremely successful ways to adapt or produce behaviours.

However, when you get into humans, it becomes even more difficult. If you think about it, the second option has more of a reward, an apple + the feeling of receiving an award/recognition for your hard work. If I had a choice to go to a giant bowl and pick out a nubblet of kibble any time, or go over to a bar, press it down, receive a nubblet and a pat on the head, I would totally push the bar 100% of the time!
Click to expand...

I don't. Thus I never get very far in MMORPGs which seem to be all about this to an absurd degree.
 
sprinkles said:
I don't. Thus I never get very far in MMORPGs which seem to be all about this to an absurd degree.
Click to expand...

Yeah MMORPGs are all about irregular reward schedules - which is why they're so addictive, because you always think "this next one I'll get that super awesome rare epic wand that does 10000% INT and has a 5% chance of summoning a cute sheep when used". Damn them using psychology against me!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I could resist them like you!
 
I think it depends on the person.

I know my youngest son has no problem with handouts without having to work for them :) . At this moment he'd rather live at his grandmother's place and be supported by her even though she's on a fixed income than live at home with us and have to do some work in exchange for room and board. I hope he'll grow out of that but I don't know.

Myself, I've always had a difficult time accepting free handouts of anything. If somebody is being nice I will gracefully accept it but I prefer the feeling of getting something for a job well done.
 
say what said:
Yeah MMORPGs are all about irregular reward schedules - which is why they're so addictive, because you always think "this next one I'll get that super awesome rare epic wand that does 10000% INT and has a 5% chance of summoning a cute sheep when used". Damn them using psychology against me!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I could resist them like you!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I work when I work, and I don't when I don't.

I'll help people for pay and I'll help people for free. When I set my mind to do something I do it the same regardless of any reward or recognition.

When it becomes a job though, when I start feeling compelled to push the bar to get a treat, that shit gets old.
 
I'm kinda in line with what [MENTION=11663]rachelbaker99[/MENTION] and to a certain degree what [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] have stated.

There is an bias within the test itself which directly relates to suspicion toward "free handouts" and an ingrained "there are no free lunches" ideal within modern society. Most people would rather have the apple they "worked" for because it would be "clear" of obligation or perceived obligation to the person providing the "free" apples. Better to pay the cost upfront than beholden to a cost you are unaware of.
 
Nixie said:
I'm kinda in line with what @rachelbaker99 and to a certain degree what @Lark have stated.

There is an bias within the test itself which directly relates to suspicion toward "free handouts" and an ingrained "there are no free lunches" ideal within modern society. Most people would rather have the apple they "worked" for because it would be "clear" of obligation or perceived obligation to the person providing the "free" apples. Better to pay the cost upfront than beholden to a cost you are unaware of.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that is interesting, the idea of having earned the apple is better than it being a gift because gift relationships involve an obligation to repay the gift with equal or greater value.

I remember when I first read about all this, Marcel Maus, great writer, although the idea has been popularised a lot by Big Bang Theory and a sketch in which Sheldon does not know how to reciprocate a gift from Penny.
 
a lot of good points have been covered already, but if you are interested in reading on this subject then you should pick up some of Dan Ariely's consumer-oriented books. Predictably Irrational is short and informative.
 
I'd go for the ones given me as a payment for a job. I like to feel like I've earned it.

But about your economics glass topic, if I do the job only for monetary gains I do a lousy job. It's the way my brain just works. If I'm really interested in the task at hand I do better. So if there's something else to gain from a job I work better. But that wouldn't probably be acknowledgement or people being proud of me or something like that, because I like to work behind the scenes. But if I see that my work benefits people and make them happy, that's the greatest reward.

I'm still having trouble with English, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.
 
No, I do not.

I do not enjoy the prospect of believing that I was enticed into depreciating the worth and value of my labor in exchange for cheap and insincere forms of validation. There is no mutual exclusion between the exchange of money and validation. Receiving payment for work well done is both.
 
Besides, if this were true then the most happiness would be attained by making everyone work for free, wouldn't it?

Around where I live people don't want handouts because getting them is a social shame. Such a person will often be seen as and treated like a crapsack.

Also even for freeloaders the apples are DEFINITELY not identical. Stuff that is given away is most often unsellable, some times semi-rotten. I've seen cases where food bank items were infested with weevils and other crap.

Most of the time I don't think you can say that working is the preferred choice because of work ethic alone because the options are not equal - what you can get by working is often superior by far, plus you end up with a lot more choices and self determination.
 
Money changed everything

Before that things worked on a gift economy. I might need a goat so i might say to a neighbour ''my last goat died recently and since then we've not been able to make any milk, butter or cheese''

The neighbour would say ''we had a few goats born in our flock this year, please take a male and a female''

Nothing would be given in return initially (if there was a swap that would be a 'barter economy')

Later on my neighbour might be struggling to till his field because his plough has broken so he'd come to me and tell me what was going on. I would then say ''as soon as i have finished ploughing my field i will bring the ox and plough over to yours and help you do yours''. This would be a way of repaying the earlier gift from my neighbour; i doesn;t need to be equal in value. In fact if its equal in value it breaks the continuity of our interactions. It stops the ongoing interplay of give and take

This way of doing things achieves a number of things. First of all it ensures that everyone in the community is always helped to achieve what they need to achieve and secondly it builds up a sense of community because everyone is interacting, helping each other out and building rapport

Compare that to the modern money driven society where people work for a boss who pays them a 'wage'.The government then takes a cut of the wage for 'taxes' and then the person must buy what they need with the remainder. Because the boss wants to maximise profits they will try to get the workers to work as much as possible so the workers end up tired and by the time they get home they don't have the energy to invest in food, whether it is going around suppliers or preparing it. So they buy it from a single source (the 'supermarket') which requires no interaction with the community. The checking out can even be done by automation now and food can even be bought online and delivered.

So the worker has gone from being part of a dynamic contributing community to being an isloated worker who moves around other people at work but is confined to their 'work zone' and who moves around people at the supermarket but has not reason to speak to the other people there

The 'reward' before was being a part of a community and the 'reward' now is a 'wage' which is used on a day to day basis in a way that isolates people

people are social animals...that is how we have evolved. Money is really a recent development and is an abheration in terms of how we have evolved

Anthropologist David Graeber has some interesting things to say about this (he wrote a book called 'debt: the first 5,000 years'):

[video=youtube;IcK7rkajHKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcK7rkajHKE[/video]
 
Last edited:
I disagree a bit with the whole "money was never the way" stance. I think that even as infants we are conditioned in a way to the understanding of quid pro quo (This for That). I pondered this awhile last night because I found aspects of this interesting.

What I think is that there are other bias when it comes to an experiment of this kind. Nothing taken into account about the hunger of the participants. No mention that if the animals were captive then they were not in a natural state. I think that if someone were hungry enough, the free apples would be taken on face value. A well fed individual might do the one requiring some effort from sheer boredom or because they understand that within the experiment, something is expected of them.

But, going back to the quid pro quo....even in infancy the idea of "I do this, and I get that" is established. I am hungry, I cry. Eventually I learn that when I cry, I get my needs met. It is the start of a conditioned response to the natural order of things, action creates reaction....repeat. If we extend that to our understanding of economics, we naturally understand that "something" is "required" to get what we want. As we evolved we learned to quantify what that "something" was and created a societal concept of "value".

I don't know if I would truly say that within the initial formation of civilization that everything was a "gift". I would have to think about that concept.
 
The milk is given as a gift from the mother

From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need


The mother is able to give milk, the baby needs the milk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top