“I Feel Bad If I Don’t”: When Good Behaviour Comes From Guilt

When Richard Ryan and James Connell asked primary-aged children why they did their homework, some of the answers were exactly what you would expect. “My teacher would yell at me if I didn’t.” “I want to learn as much as I can.” And then there was a third kind of answer, the one worth pausing on: “I feel bad when I don’t.”

That third answer sounds like a success. The child is doing the right thing without being watched or rewarded, and there is no sticker chart in sight. Yet in the framework Ryan and Connell were testing, that answer sits closer to pressure than to choice, and the research that has followed gives us good reason to be careful before celebrating it.

A motivation that lives inside but isn’t owned

Self-determination theory treats motivation as a continuum rather than an on/off switch. In Ryan and Deci’s (2000) overview in American Psychologist, it runs from external regulation (I do it because of a reward or a punishment), through introjection (I do it because I would feel guilty, anxious or ashamed if I didn’t, or because it props up my sense of worth), to identification and integration (I do it because I value it and it fits who I am).

Introjection is the awkward one in the middle. The rule has moved inside the child’s head, but it hasn’t become theirs. It speaks with the voice of an internal supervisor. I’ve written before about why compliance is not character, and introjection is the harder case, because from the outside it can look exactly like a child who has taken a value to heart.

Ryan and Connell (1989) found that children’s reasons for schoolwork fell into that ordered pattern, and that the categories behaved differently. Introjected reasons were most closely related to anxiety and to anxious ways of responding to failure, while identified reasons were more closely linked to positive coping. These were questionnaire findings, so they tell us which experiences tend to travel together, not that one causes another. The picture is still a consistent one: effort driven by guilt tends to come with worry attached.

Why it can pass for character

Introjection works, at least on the surface. Assor, Roth and Deci (2004) looked at what happens when parents make their affection depend on a child meeting expectations, in areas that included schoolwork, sport, controlling emotions and being considerate towards others. University students who recalled more of this conditional regard reported more introjection, and introjection helped explain why they were more likely to carry out the expected behaviour. The behaviour came, and so did short-lived satisfaction after success, shame and guilt after failure, unstable self-esteem and resentment towards parents. In the authors’ words, the approach can promote the desired behaviours “but does so with significant affective costs.” It is worth remembering that these were adults looking back on how they were parented, which is a self-report picture rather than direct observation.

A later study by Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan and Deci (2009), with ninth-grade students in Israel, separated two forms of conditional regard. Withdrawing warmth when a teenager fell short predicted resentment and academic disengagement. Giving extra warmth when they succeeded, which sounds far kinder, predicted a sense of internal compulsion, suppression of negative feelings and engagement focused on grades rather than interest. Autonomy support predicted a sense of choice and engagement driven by interest. The design was cross-sectional, and the authors are clear that it cannot establish causation. It does unsettle the comfortable idea that warm, approving pressure is harmless, and it sits close to what I explored in “You’re So Clever” and What It Quietly Teaches. For families, it is another reminder that the way parents get involved matters.

The research on helping is just as interesting. Weinstein and Ryan (2010) ran four studies, including experiments, and found that when people helped because they genuinely wanted to, rather than because they felt pressured, both the helper and the person being helped tended to benefit more. A follow-up by Weinstein, DeHaan and Ryan (2010) found that people reading about helping scenarios felt more gratitude towards helpers who seemed to act freely than towards those acting out of internal pressure. These studies were with adults, so I would be cautious about lifting them straight into a Year 3 classroom. They do suggest that other people can sense the reason behind a kind act.

What this asks of adults

None of this means guilt is useless. Feeling uncomfortable after hurting someone is a healthy part of conscience, and the questions I ask after a behaviour incident depend on children noticing the impact of what they did. My own reading of this research, and it is an interpretation rather than a finding, is that the important question is what the discomfort is attached to. Guilt that says “I hurt someone and I want to put it right” points outwards, towards the other person. Guilt that says “I’m only good if I get this right” points inwards, towards the child’s worth. The first has somewhere to grow. The second tends to stay a supervisor.

Take a hypothetical example. A Year 4 child forgets their reading book for the third time in a fortnight. One adult says, “I’m disappointed. I thought you were more responsible than this.” Another asks, “What gets in the way on reading mornings? What would help you remember?” Either might get the book back in the bag. The first ties the child’s standing with the adult to remembering. The second treats remembering as a problem the child can own and solve.

Assor, Kaplan and Roth (2002) offer a useful lead for teachers. In a survey of more than 850 Israeli pupils in grades 3 to 8, the teacher behaviour that best predicted engagement was helping pupils see how schoolwork connected with their own interests and goals. Among the controlling behaviours, the strongest negative predictor was shutting down pupils’ criticism. Again, this is association, and it concerned schoolwork rather than behaviour. The principle seems to travel, though: children have a better chance of owning an expectation when someone has helped them understand it and has let them question it.

The Character Loop includes the question “What does that say about you?” Its intention is to help a child connect an action with who they want to be, rather than with whether an adult approves. Whether it achieves that in practice is something that needs its own evidence, and none of the research above proves it does.

Where my doctorate comes in

My Ed.D. in Ethical Leadership focuses on children’s self-endorsed motivation, the kind that sits at the far end of this continuum. The study is still in progress, so nothing here should be read as a finding of mine. What the existing research does offer is a sharper set of questions to bring into ordinary school life:

  • When a child behaves well, do we know why, or only that they did?
  • Does our praise, and our disappointment, make warmth feel conditional?
  • Do children hear the reasons behind our expectations, and are they allowed to question them?
  • When something goes wrong, does the conversation point towards the person affected, or towards the child’s standing with us?

For leaders, the same questions turn back on the adults. Staff can be driven by introjection as easily as pupils: staying late because they would feel guilty not to, or following a policy because of how it would look if they didn’t. I suspect it is hard for a school to help children move along the continuum if the adults are stuck in the middle of it themselves.

“I feel bad when I don’t” is a reasonable place for a child to be on the way somewhere. It is a poor place for us to aim. What we are hoping for is a child who could say something closer to “I do it because it matters to me”, and mean it, whether or not anyone is around to be disappointed.

References