Researchers explain and show that they “understand” motivation by describing it in terms of ego/task-orientation, or extrinsic/intrinsic scales.  However, none of those examples really explains what motivation is, or how to affect or effect it.

But this research is like saying “an apple is red, or it can be green.”  “People who stick to workout plans have high intrinsic motivation.”  So what?  You’ve just described a quality of the thing, not the cause.  Why can these folks develop intrinsic motivation (or have it inherently), or task orientation, while others don’t or have a really hard time doing so?

Recent research is showing that you can alter task/ego orientation by altering the motivational climate the person is in.  For instance, you can create an environment that supports a focus on individual achievement according to your own ability level.  This information helps once you have someone working out, but how do you get them off the couch to begin with?!

Why is it that some people are highly motivated to exercise and others not at all?  And why is it that when some people start exercising, they stop immediately?  Even for people whom you know have a very strong reason (high intrinsic or extrinsic motivation) to exercise (heart patients, etc.), the old habits always win.  I think it’s more than inertia.  That’s too simplistic an answer.

Commercials give us huge insight into how to make people do things they otherwise wouldn’t do.  Buy the “thighmaster,” “perfect pushup,” “p90x.”  But even then, most of those things turn into clothes hangers after about a month.  What motivates people to buy those things is a desire to have what they see.  I think there’s a direct link between seeing and believing, which is why TV is so effective.  Social pressure, and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Death) add to that visual effect.

It still doesn’t answer why some stick while others falter.