“I’m going to ask my boyfriend to marry me tomorrow,” our friend announced to us suddenly during dinner.

“The Baroness” and I exchanged furtive glances. This proclamation was not immediate cause for rejoicing.

Our single sister friend on the wrong side of 30 had been with her “boyfriend” for almost ten years. He was an okay guy, but—if the ten-year ‘courtship’ didn’t make this obvious--he had absolutely NO interest in getting married. (This would not, in fact, even be her first proposal to him, either…)

Our friend for her part has remained steadfast and loyal through the years, without even considering seeing other people (despite some subtle and not-so-subtle hints from us and others that this might be wise), preferring to wait patiently for the day when her guy will be “ready” for marriage.

“So, how it going to work?” my wife asked.

“Well, we’re going out to dinner tomorrow, then I’ll bring out this ring I bought, and tell him we’ve been together long enough and it’s time to get married.”

“Or else…?”

“Or else, what?”

“Are you going to break up with him if he doesn’t say ‘yes’?”

“No, no…I’ll just keep being his girlfriend and continue waiting.”

Another furtive glance between my wife and I.

My wife summarized this proposal: “Marry me…or else we’ll continue keeping things exactly as they are and have always been for the last ten years.”

(No points for guessing how the proposal ended up.)

Rather than focus on the romantic plight of this sister and others like her, this experience brought to mind the subject of incentives, and their fundamental purpose in influencing behavior.  What part does the “or else…” clause in life choices play in influencing our decisions?

We must first recognize that ‘incentives’ are an essential part of psychology. Why? Because, human beings—and *ahem* men, in particular—are conditioned primarily to look out for numero uno. They make decisions primarily based on what best benefits themselves, not necessarily what best benefits anyone else around them.

Human psychology—particularly male psychology—is not rocket science. In the above relationship, the status quo had been in place for a long time, and (obviously) was perfectly acceptable as far as this guy was concerned.  Presenting a choice, where one of the choices happened to be keeping the status quo as it is, was quite obviously a recipe for disappointment.

When you want to break away from the status quo, what do you do?  Either present an incentive to depart from it…or no longer present it as an option.

Imagine if, in the above situation, at least the threat of breaking up had been introduced? Add in an “or else…” clause (and, of course, have the will to go through with it), then the status quo no longer remains as an option: “I don’t particularly want to get married…” this guy might think, “but—oh, no!--I don’t actually want to break up with her, either. Hmmm….” There’s no guarantee this would obtain the desired result, but certainly the chances increase…

The most obvious response to this idea is, well, he shouldn’t *NEED* an incentive to get married, right?

"Isn’t being married to me incentive enough?” this sister might say, “Wouldn’t I rather have a guy who married me because he wanted to, not because he was prodded into it by offering some ‘carrot’…or some ‘stick’ as a threat? I might as well say, ‘Hey, if you’ll marry me, I’ll pay you $10,000 or buy you a new BMW!’”

Sure: ideally, that would be the case.  But isn’t it obvious that ‘ideally’ ran out the door into the wilderness years ago in this relationship never to be seen again?

In Mosiah, we read:

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.”

In other words, the fact that the ‘natural man’ is primarily concerned with self-interest is a known part of the plan of salvation. However, as stated, the natural man can be overcome through the Atonement, and through ‘yielding’ to the Holy Spirit.

The use of the word ‘enticings’ in this scripture—where ‘entice’ is defined as “to lead on by exciting hope or desire”--is interesting, here.  It implies that overcoming the natural man is NOT working against self-interest: it is, in fact, bettering it.

To that end, it is interesting to note how incentives are used in the gospel as well.

Why should we keep the commandments? Ideally, you might say we should follow the commandments of God just because… Because we love God. Because it’s the right thing to do. Because it’s what God wants us to do.

And yet, that’s not quite how the scriptures usually phrase things… Mankind has received specific ‘incentives’ to be righteous. The basic concept behind ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, in fact, is basically one big incentive. Don’t sin not just because ‘God doesn’t want you to’ or because ‘it’s just not right’, but because “if you do, EVERLASTING FIRES WILL BURN YOUR FLESH FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!” (Now, there’s an incentive!)

(Likewise, the idea that we can have “all that the Father hath”, if we are found worthy. Can there be a much bigger incentive than that?) 

As a further example, we can note that in the Old Testament call to pay tithing in Malachi, it doesn’t say pay tithing just because it’s the right thing to do, or because it’s part of our sacrifice to God, or because that money may benefit other less fortunate people, it says specifically that paying tithing will ‘open the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it’.

In other words, according to God, even if self-interest is the ONLY thing that matters to you, you should *still* pay tithing, because YOU (without regard to anyone else) will still come out ahead if you do.

[A good non-doctrinal example of incentives: most missionary elders have heard the common axiom—which no one actually believes, but gets passed around anyway—that “the harder you work on your mission, the better looking your wife will be!”  Remember, male psychology. Is. Not. Rocket Science.]

We should also note that what we’re referring to as ‘incentives’ are not necessary all deliberate incentives—in the sense of ‘purposely added on after-the-fact to a situation as a means of extraneously influencing decision-making’. Some incentives exist as a natural consequence of the choice.

One ‘incentive’ for exercising, for instance, is having a healthier body. And it’s not because God--or the government--is going to magically grant unto you a healthier body as a reward for exercising, but because it follows naturally from the choice.

Likewise, the concept of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’—or substituting in the more complicated LDS equivalent—is not necessarily created out of the air by God as a means of encouraging good behavior, but may in fact be merely accurate descriptions of the inherent consequences of righteous or unrighteous living.  No use of ‘carrots’ or ‘sticks’ needed.

Defining ‘hell’ as ‘separation from God’ (instead of literally a fiery pit which burns your flesh for eternity) and ‘heaven’ (expanded into the three kingdom paradigm) as ‘living in God’s presence’ or alternately being as ‘perfect’ as He is, shows the same form of natural incentive. Perhaps entering into ‘heaven’ is less a matter of God deciding whether or not to let you in, like some immortal bouncer outside a celestial nightclub, but rather what naturally comes from choices made.

I believe most gospel incentives of ‘happiness through righteousness’ are of this general form.  Righteous living happens to inherently bring happiness, not that if you’re righteous God will reward you for doing less fun things in your life by giving you some extraneous ‘blessing’ later as a reward that ends up making you happy anyway. 

Is there a problem with incentives? Perhaps the main concern is whether the incentive playing a part psychologically in encouraging certain behavior happens to ‘cheapen’ that behavior.  As noted, getting a guy to marry you because you’d give him $10,000 or a new car—doesn’t that cheapen the marriage somehow, compared to having a guy marry you for no other incentive than, you know, wanting to be with you?  If an Elders’ Quorum decided to offer $20 checks to any companionship who had 100% home teaching each month, would that be a good or bad policy for encouraging home teaching? (Even if home teaching improved as a result?)

[Another real-world example: There has been much discussion about whether schools should be paying students as a reward for good grades. The issue is not whether paying students for grades in anyway encourages them to get good grades (that should be obvious), but whether that is counter-productive in the long run, when your ultimate goal is to encourage students to get good grades because that’s what’s best for their long-term future. What if the short-term ‘carrot’ negatively influences their long-term development, especially later on in their higher education when they are no longer paid for grades?]

We have a few scriptural references for the idea that relying on incentives to do good has a limited utility:

 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;(D&C 58:26-27)

And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. (Alma 32:14-16)

Fear of punishment or negative consequences can be a great incentive and motivator not to do the wrong thing. But the fear of ‘going to hell’ will only go so far in encouraging true Christ-like behavior. Sooner or later, some positive incentive will need to be found or else negative incentives will lose their motivating ability. Both scriptures above imply that negative incentives are useful to a point, but need to be eventually replaced by a positive attitude towards righteous living for true ‘conversion’ to take place.

How to judge incentives in the secular and spiritual world? Useful means to an end, or a fake and counter-productive method of getting outward results without inward conversion?  Like them or not, incentives--even within the gospel plan--play an important role in human psychology and in overcoming the natural man.  Thus, the principle of using incentives to influence behavior cannot be abandoned lightly.