Motivation and The Candle Problem
by Rhoads on August 13, 2013 in Motivation
Our world continues to move faster and is increasing in complexity. So what’s the best way to motivate people to think creatively and solve complex problems in a shorter amount of time? Let’s take a look at a study that examines this question.
“The Candle Problem” was conducted by Professor Duncker in 1945. Individuals are led into a room that has a table sitting against the wall. On it is a box of thumbtacks, some matches, and a candle. They are asked to attach a lit candle to the wall in a way that the wax won’t drip onto the table and to do this as fast as they can.
Many who attempted the test tried creative methods but were unsuccessful. Some took a tack and tried to pin the candle to the wall…but that wouldn’t work.
Others lit a match and melted the wax on the side of the candle and then tried to stick it to the wall …but, that wouldn’t work either.
Some, figured out that the real solution was to empty the box of tacks then tack it to the wall and place the lit candle in it.
Professor Duncker realized that people have difficulty in solving a problem when one element has a fixed function that must be altered. In this case, the problem solver has to be able to realize that the box is not just a container for the tacks, but that it can also be used to hold the candle on the wall.
To demonstrate this point, he repeated The Candle Problem again with new participants, but this time he placed the tacks next to the empty box. This time the problem solvers could see that the box’s function was not directly tied to holding the thumbtacks. As a result, virtually all the participants were able to solve the problem with relative ease.
The Candle Problem becomes even more intriguing when you add a monetary reward to the task which is exactly what a professor of psychology, Sam Glucksberg did in 1962.
Glucksberg took a set of new participants and split them into two groups. He told the first group that “the person to complete the problem the fastest will receive $150, and if you are in the top 25% of fastest times you’ll receive $40 (values adjusted for 2013 value).” To the other group he did not offer a monetary reward, but still asked them to solve the problem as fast as they could.
Then he split those groups up and half of each group faced the problem with the tacks placed outside of the box, and the other half faced the problem in the more complex way with the tacks placed in the box.
You’d expect that those who were given the incentive of money would solve the problem faster and in fact that is true when the tacks were out of the box. More of the participants in the group that was incentivized by money solved the problem and with faster times than the other group.
However this was not the case when the problem was given in the more complex way with the tacks placed inside of the box. In this case, those who were not incented by money performed better than those who were offered money.
Glucksberg found that adding the variable of competition for a monetary reward creates levels of stress that shuts down the creative thinking and problem solving areas of the brain.
This finding can have huge implications on the reward model that many organizations use today. Many organizations use an “if – then” motivation model, meaning if you do this, then you get that. While directly tying financial incentives in an “if – then” format to simple tasks can be effective, tying financial incentives in this format to complex tasks that require creative thinking will actually have a negative impact on performance.
This viewpoint was popularized by Daniel Pink in his book Drive where he unpacks the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The main premise of his book is that you when you hire people to do complex and creative work, you need to motivate them with autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than the carrot of a financial reward. Pink is clear to point out that money is still very important…however for this type of work, organizations should pay their employees very well and not tie it directly to the result of their creative work because that would only decrease their performance.
So if you lead a team or are trying to figure out how to motivate people to do something, think about the type of task that is being completed and if it complex and requires creative thinking, understand that using money as a reward for performance on this type of work will actually decrease the quality of the work you are trying to incite.
Sources:
Drive, by Daniel Pink
The Cornell Daily Sun, “Solve this Problem, Receive $20”, by Steven Zhang
The Candle Problem – Wikipedia
http://www.lucideastudio.com/2013/08/13/motivation-and-the-candle-problem/
Question - How to increase motivation for more research?
Answer - It is necessary to fall in love. Fall in love with Science!
How to increase motivation for more research?
My personal view includes:
Dear Seyda! I wish that your hard work has helped you to become independent in solving the problems in your life. It will come to you soon. Vladimir
Organizations once distinguished themselves by their systems and procedures. They now need distinctive ideas about their objectives, their clients, what their clients value, their results, and their plans. For that, they need top talent and must face up to the challenge of managing and leading it. Smart people are the motive power of the knowledge economy. When there is no choice but to explore and exploit opportunity, organizations must unleash their full creative and innovative potential. To imagine without limits answers to the question “What if …?” they must use tools, methods, and approaches that both empower and nurture possibility and reveal the immediate significance and potentiality of what is then found. A new type of leader—one that neither lacks self-confidence nor imagination—must emerge. He or she will:
- Know how to discover and learn, and manage and inspire discovery and learning in others;
- Grasp how to identify and validate ideas, and transform them into opportunities; and
- Nourish and trigger the imagination of individuals in teams, and translate the results into innovations that benefit organizations and society at large.
Leading Top Talent in the Workplace, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266477077_Leading_Top_Talent_in_the_Workplace, may be of interest.
Article Leading Top Talent in the Workplace
Dear Seyda,
Thanks for sharing this wonderful insight. Motivation is also a social process as we are all influenced by people around us. As a result, I would also suggest to encourage team research to increase the motivation of the researchers in the team.
Most of the aspects have been covered, I am late in answering but I strongly believe, motivation for further and improved research can be dramatically increased by cross functional talks and brain storming sessions. We as researchers need to thing deliberate as how, two different ares can be integrated for an applicable research, in terms of societal benefit.
If you like and enjoy by doing research or you think it is very important, you will have enthusiasm that is simply motivation. If there are personnel who stimulate people including you to perform the job of researching, you will have a high degree of willingness to exert the needed effort to perform the job of researching successfully. Organizationally, when the number of research and quality of research are linked with salary increments, promotions, special financial and non-financial awards, it is most likely that the relevant people exhibit a high level of motivation to do research.
Dear @Şeyda Bostancı To me, motivation equals to inspiration plus directed action towards the aim. If anybody is accustomed to disclosing his aim before others, research has revealed that the person gradually loses his motivation towards his aim.
Best regards, AKC
A few words and works of encouragement and appreciation could suffice. Oftentimes, a simple and sincere "thank you" may do the magic. At other times, an open or public reward might be necessary. It could also motivate or better still challenge others.
Hi. The following website contains the ways of motivation in research:
https://www.stemcell.com/efficient-research/stay-motivated
Check https://www.stemcell.com/efficient-research/stay-motivated
Also check https://www.stemcell.com/efficient-research/stay-motivated
Interesting background and question. I find that people do what they are rewarded for doing and that many have been trained to get the correct answer to problems where the correct answer is known or can be identified by known methods. This means they depend upon experience rather than creative thought.
When someone joins my group my first goal is to help them be successful in solving some research problem. Once they realize that they can achieve solutions and get recognition and a sense of success, they are motivated to think and work harder. In terms of the candle-wall problem it is a simple example of how many rely on experience rather than thought to solve problems. The creative way to solve any problem is to consider its unique and fundamental features and then to consider solutions in terms of first principles.
It is possible to teach mentor to approach problems in this way. The degree to which one can approaches a problem in terms of its unique and fundamental aspects and first principles is what distinguishes expertise from experience.
But this is what is happening all around. We often compete for research funds to do research. Our universities peg promotion on the amount of funds attracted and following your story this could be one of the reasons why we in Kenya are not able to compete with our peers abroad in terms of finding solutions to societal problems for example vaccine, food security among others.
To stay motivated, always remember why you chose research, always keep up with current discoveries,take small steps and keep rewarding yourself,expect imperfections, think outside the box and finally work smart and not hard.
I think this asking hiw to get more different and differently approached research questions? Change the impact agenda research culture in Universities. Very long term projects, high risk blue sky projects or anything speculative are disadvantaged in the current game. The cynic in me thinks this is impossible - no university would deliberately hamstring itself and risk sliding down a valuable league table. Unless there was a column that weighted and valued these things.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication