Guide: Discipline, nieuwsgierigheid en spel

Its companion page, doing hard things, makes the case for discipline: hard things pay off on a delay, and the capacity to do them can be built. Interest, play, and having some say in what you do are the other half. The discipline that lasts a lifetime is rarely powered by willpower alone. It runs on those three things, which is roughly what the motivation research keeps finding.

What The Motivation Research Found

Two kinds of motivation drive any practice. Extrinsic motivation runs on outside pressure, a reward, a deadline, a punishment, someone watching. Intrinsic motivation comes from the activity itself, pursued because it is interesting, absorbing, or satisfying. Both produce action. Only the intrinsic kind keeps going after the outside pressure stops. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan spent decades on why.

Their answer is self-determination theory. It names three needs intrinsic motivation runs on: autonomy (a felt sense of choice), competence (the feeling of getting better), and relatedness (doing it with or for others). Where all three are present, the behavior sustains itself. Where a person is only pushed from outside, it usually stops when the pushing stops.

A meta-analysis of 128 experiments found that a tangible reward for an activity can make people less likely to choose it on their own later. The effect was modest, and it varied with the reward: verbal encouragement and positive feedback raised interest instead. Paying someone for something they already enjoyed can turn the pay into the reason they do it. When the pay stops, so does the activity, the original interest that used to carry them is gone.

The effects are small to moderate, and much of the evidence is correlational: it links interest to persistence without establishing cause. Researchers still debate the details. But one finding holds up throughout.

Who is still practicing a year later comes down to interest and having a say in how the practice is done, more than sheer force of will.

The Research & Studies

Everything here is based on the research we have collected and checked, sorted into groups and ordered with the strongest evidence first. Click any claim to open the studies behind it.

Behavior Change

Across 183 studies of 212,468 people, intrinsic interest predicted better performanceModerate

In plain terms

Pulling together 40 years of studies on more than 200,000 people, being interested in the task itself predicted doing it well, and it did so whether or not there was also a reward on offer.

In detail

A random-effects meta-analysis of 183 studies (N = 212,468) across school, work and physical domains found intrinsic motivation to be a medium-to-strong predictor of performance, with population-level correlations of roughly .21 to .45. Its predictive value held whether or not extrinsic incentives were present. Incentive salience mattered: intrinsic motivation predicted performance less strongly when incentives were tied directly to it, and more strongly when they were tied only indirectly. In meta-analytic regression, intrinsic motivation predicted unique variance in quality of performance, while incentives better predicted quantity. Being correlational, it shows association across a very large sample rather than establishing cause.

Who this may not transfer to:Pooled across school, work and physical-activity samples of both sexes; the relationship is broad, though it describes association across settings rather than a tested cause in any one person.

The study · 1

Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis · Psychol Bull 2014;140(4):980-1008

Across 128 experiments, tangible rewards lowered people's later interest, while praise raised itModerate · risk

In plain terms

Paying people to do something they already liked tended to lower how much they chose to do it later, a modest effect, while praise and encouragement raised it.

In detail

A meta-analysis of 128 experiments found that engagement-contingent, completion-contingent and performance-contingent tangible rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation, with effect sizes of d = -0.40, -0.36 and -0.28 respectively; expected tangible rewards showed the same pattern. Engagement- and completion-contingent rewards also lowered self-reported interest (d = -0.15 and -0.17). Positive verbal feedback moved the opposite way, enhancing free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards were somewhat more detrimental for children than for college students. The effects are small to moderate, and the interpretation has been contested across several competing meta-analyzes of the same literature.

Who this may not transfer to:Experiments in children and college-age adults of both sexes; the undermining effect ran somewhat larger in children than in college students.

The study · 1

Deci, Koestner & Ryan, a meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation · Psychol Bull 1999;125(6):627-68

Across 184 studies, autonomous motivation went with better mental and physical healthModerate

In plain terms

Pooling 184 studies in health settings, people who felt a sense of choice and growing competence were more self-motivated, and that self-owned motivation went with better mental and physical health outcomes.

In detail

A meta-analysis of 184 independent data sets applying self-determination theory in health-care and health-promotion contexts found the expected pattern among its core constructs: practitioner support for autonomy related to greater psychological need satisfaction, and need satisfaction and autonomous motivation related positively to beneficial mental and physical health outcomes. Path analyzes of the meta-analyzed correlations supported the theory's proposed structure. Because most included data are correlational and self-reported, and the effect sizes were heterogeneous, it establishes that autonomous motivation travels with better outcomes, not that it causes them.

Who this may not transfer to:Pooled across health-care and health-promotion samples of both sexes; the relationships are largely correlational and mostly self-reported.

The study · 1

Ng et al., self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis · Perspect Psychol Sci 2012;7(4):325-40

Across 66 studies, self-owned motivation predicted sticking with exercise long-termModerate

In plain terms

Reviewing 66 studies of exercise, the more people did it because they wanted to, not felt they had to, the more likely they were to keep it up, with enjoyment mattering most for the long haul.

In detail

A systematic review of 66 empirical studies (experimental, cross-sectional and prospective, published through June 2011) examined self-determination theory constructs against exercise and physical-activity outcomes. It found consistent support for a positive relation between more autonomous motivation and exercise, with identified regulation tending to predict initial and short-term adoption and intrinsic motivation more predictive of long-term adherence. Competence satisfaction and intrinsic motives predicted participation across a range of samples and settings, while evidence on health, fitness and body-related motives was mixed. The review pooled findings qualitatively, not computing a summary effect size, and most designs were descriptive, so it is stronger on direction than on magnitude.

Who this may not transfer to:Drawn from varied exercise samples of both sexes; the direction holds across them, with no reliable split by sex reported.

The study · 1

Teixeira et al., exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review · Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:78

Cognition

Curiosity and effort together predicted school achievement about as much as intelligenceModerate

In plain terms

Combining many studies, how curious and engaged a student was predicted their achievement about as much as effort did, and curiosity plus effort together rivalled raw intelligence.

In detail

Using path models based on a meta-analytically derived correlation matrix, the authors added intellectual curiosity (measured as typical intellectual engagement) to the traditional predictors of academic performance. Intelligence remained the single most powerful predictor, and its effect was not mediated by personality. Intelligence, conscientiousness (a marker of effort) and intellectual curiosity emerged as direct, correlated predictors, and the additive predictive contribution of curiosity and effort together rivalled that of intelligence. Because the models rest on pooled correlations, not experiments, they establish curiosity as a strong correlate of achievement rather than demonstrating cause.

Who this may not transfer to:Built from academic samples of both sexes; carrying it beyond school settings is an assumption.

The study · 1

von Stumm, Hell & Chamorro-Premuzic, the hungry mind: intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance · Perspect Psychol Sci 2011;6(6):574-88

Curiosity improved memory on both immediate and one-day-delayed testsEmerging

In plain terms

When people were curious about something they remembered it better, and they even remembered unrelated things they came across while curious. Brain imaging linked those curious moments to the reward and memory systems.

In detail

In a within-subject fMRI study, healthy adults rated their curiosity about trivia questions, then were tested on the answers immediately and after a one-day delay. Memory was better for high-curiosity items at both time points, and curiosity also improved memory for incidental faces shown during the anticipation window. Imaging showed enhanced midbrain and nucleus accumbens activity during high-curiosity states, and individual differences in the curiosity-driven memory benefit tracked anticipatory activity in the midbrain and hippocampus and the functional connectivity between them. The authors read this as a link between the circuitry of extrinsic reward and intrinsic curiosity. It is a single small study, and the dopaminergic account is inferred from the imaging.

Who this may not transfer to:Sex was not reported in this small imaging study, and the curiosity-memory link has not been broken down by sex.

The study · 1

Gruber, Gelman & Ranganath, states of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit · Neuron 2014;84(2):486-96

Play Is Part Of Practice

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called the best version of intrinsic motivation flow. Flow is full absorption in an activity hard enough to demand your whole attention, but not so hard you cannot manage it. Flow is rewarding in itself. That is why flow-producing activities tend to get repeated without anyone forcing the repetition.

Curiosity also improves memory. In one study using functional MRI, people remembered facts better when they were curious about them. They also remembered unrelated details that appeared while they were in that curious state. During high-curiosity moments the scans showed more activity in the brain's reward and memory regions, and that activity predicted the stronger recall. The dopamine link is inferred from where that activity appeared; no one measured dopamine itself. In a curious state, new material is more likely to stick.

The Movement Culture View

Ido Portal, a movement teacher whose public work popularized the idea of a movement practice, built an approach around treating the body as something to explore. His philosophy is publicly taught but has never been clinically tested.

• Play and curiosity lead. They are the practice itself, and the training builds from them.
• Process over outcome. The aim is the practice and the quality of attention; hitting a particular number matters less.
• Generalism over isolation. Movement stays varied, connected, and often improvised, with isolation drills used as one tool among many.
• Attention and awareness. Staying present in the movement, day after day.

His approach (exploration, kept interesting, owned by the person) matches what the motivation research found. The studies reach the same conclusion from the other direction.

What Changed

The received wisdom is "no pain, no gain": results come from overriding yourself, and enjoyment means you are not working hard enough. Part of that holds, since some worthwhile things are unpleasant while you do them. Then a 40-year meta-analysis across school, work, and physical activity, drawing on more than two hundred thousand people, complicated it. Intrinsic motivation was a medium-to-strong predictor of performance, holding whether or not external incentives were in play. In the exercise research, people who train for their own reasons are the ones most likely to still be training months and years later. Enjoyment there becomes one of the better predictors of results.

How To Use It

Pick the version you find interesting. The perfect routine does nothing once you quit it in March; a merely good one you still run in December keeps producing results.

Build choice into the practice. Autonomy is one of those three needs, so decide as you go, which route, which variation, which day, which order.

Follow the curiosities. A curious state deepens both memory and engagement, and the questions it raises are usually where skill accumulates.

Keep willpower in reserve for the hard days. Discipline keeps the practice going on low-interest days until curiosity returns. Willpower is a finite resource. Pair it with the structural supports in the doing hard things companion page, which remove obstacles ahead of time so starting takes less willpower.

What We Are Not Saying

None of this says effort is unnecessary, or that difficult things become easy once you enjoy them. Hard practice is still hard, and the willpower case in the doing hard things companion page still stands.

Common Questions

Is intrinsic motivation really more durable than willpower?

Over long stretches, yes. Willpower is a finite resource: draw on it every day and it wears thin, so a practice running on willpower alone tends to fail across months. Interest does not deplete the same way, so an absorbing activity is far easier to return to without forcing yourself.

Does rewarding myself for a habit backfire?

It can. Rewarding a thing you already love can quietly turn it into a transaction and shift why you do it. Protect those parts of a practice, and save rewards for the chores that need a push.

What does curiosity have to do with discipline?

More than it seems. A curious state makes a practice easier to return to: a session you are curious about takes less forcing than one you dread. On those days you barely need discipline, so you can spend it on the sessions you would otherwise skip.

Is Ido Portal's movement approach evidence-based?

Partly. His publicly taught philosophy (play, curiosity, and process driving a movement practice) lines up with what the motivation studies show. No trial has tested his specific method, so judge each training choice on its own merits.

What if none of the versions feel interesting?

Then lean on discipline for the moment and treat the flat stretch as temporary. Change one variable at a time (the route, the order, a single unfamiliar drill) since a small novelty is often enough to reopen curiosity. If an entire activity stays joyless for months, switch to a different practice you can find some reason to enjoy.