Psychotherapist Yulia Konovalova talks about what the introduction of the law can lead to, what factors influence the number of donors and how to manage these factors. Prohibitive character. Specialists distinguish such internal incentives as “motivation to” and "motivation from". In other words, the motive for any person’s actions is either to achieve something (I want to have a car to move when I want and where I want), or to avoid something (I don’t want to be jostled in the subway, but on the other hand, I don’t want stuck in traffic jams). Different people exhibit these types of motivation in different proportions. This largely depends on what stimuli were most often rewarded in childhood. Our legislative framework, in general, is prohibitive in nature. Which, undoubtedly, forms a general background of motivation among the population to avoid punishment. That is, when I first of all think about the “terrible punishment” that will overtake me, I will try again not to do anything. Low legal literacy of the population also contributes to this infantilism. If I don't know what exactly I will be punished for, I will choose to do nothing. This is reflected in activity and voluntary participation in social programs. With a minus sign. Is it possible any other way? Yes. When legislation forms a picture of “how it should be” along with “how it should not be.” You can learn from business. For example, the KPI system. The business prescribes and communicates goals and objectives to employees. Agree, if you tell an employee what he should not do, this will cause confusion. He will definitely ask you - what should I do? And not just do it, but what results do you want to get? That is if he wants to cooperate. And if he doesn’t want to, he will listen to you and will not do what you asked him to do. What will he do? No one knows, but for sure he will pursue some personal interests, and not the interests of the company. The easiest way to influence participation in activities such as blood donation is to offer money. The economic effect is most obvious and tangible. It is perceived immediately and unambiguously. Donated blood and received money. I saw the blood and felt the money. Everything is clear and fast. Accordingly, people appear at blood donation points who are ready to do this for money. For whom this is a way to earn money. But this effect is also the shortest. No money - no blood. The abolition of payments will cut off reward-oriented donors. They will go looking for other ways to get money. The feasible way But we remember that according to A. Maslow, money and other material goods, as a means of ensuring life, are at the bottom of the pyramid of needs. This is something that is important for everyone, but not for everyone it is the leading incentive in decision making. There are other needs - for communication, for recognition, for self-actualization. What does this tell us? That people who are ready to be donors based on other motives can come to blood donation points. Some for the sake of health. Because he has the belief that renewed blood helps strengthen the immune system. Some because they believe that being a donor is socially approved and correct. It is important for him to feel his own importance and usefulness. Someone because he calls himself a donor and it is his responsibility to himself to live up to this title. Someone because he wants to help someone and this is his feasible way. Are there many such donors? Don't know. It seems to me that not very much. Is there anything that can be done to attract them? Of course yes. Raise the importance of donation. Inform people about the possibility of donation and its value component. About the motive of health, importance, self-realization, human value, mercy, etc. It is also important to make this process as safe as possible. And relieve anxiety about deteriorating health or causing damage to health. Increase the level of service and attention to donors. This will stir up a fairly large pool of people,.