Can we be "internally" motivated?

I find that class thus far has put me in somewhat of a ethical paradox - almost of crisis of my known reality. I come, in my practical work with young children, from a view that I would have previously described as pretty "anti-behaviorist" and very "pro-social constructivism." But now I find myself questioning the very meaning of these terms, and how they translate into practice...

There are so many questions floating in my head it is difficult to narrow down a logical train of thought, but I'll attempt to start with just one... Can we truly be "internally" motivated? Ultimately this question leads me to want to define what it means to be internally motivated - and even here the road is bumpy and treacherous.

In my own work with children, I've felt most comfortable using conversation to promote optimal choices. An example - why should Billy sit and listen in group time? Not for some sticker or a "green light" or some other, what I would have called "exterior" nonsense, but because he understands and sees the benefit of listening - what I would lable the "true" reason that listening in this context is important. It allows him to hear what is happening in the day, to hear the ideas of his classmates to see what he would like to do with his time, so that he can be respectful of others words, just as they are respect of his contributions (we want others to listent to us). So, when Billy is not listening, these are the things I would mention, recognizing it is a process, and hoping overtime Billy would see the benefits of listening - the give and take of talking in a group setting.

But what is Billy's real motivator? Is it my smile or positive tone when he does listen and contribute in the appropriate ways? Is it the feedback from his peers, wanting to include him because Billy shows pro-social behavior? Is is because he has developed an internal desire to be respectful? Is it because he realizes the only way to have others hear him is to listen himself? Is it the structure of grouptime itself? Does it change overtime?

I want to believe we are cultivating respect and the internal drive to do what is "right" for its own sake, developing the basis of some sort of ethic... But I struggle with this, are we ultimately just doing what we do, what we might even call "moral" acts, because we want the same done unto us - and in that way, I would argue we are not really internally motivated. To me, internal motivation means that we can "rise above" whatever the benefit (or lack there of) may be to us.

So I tried to think of an altruistic act that would have little to no impact on the do-er. Let's take putting money in the salvation army bucket - now, as it is typically change and you have no receipt, we can probably knock off "tax benefit" - but when I step back to think about it there are quite a few motivators still lurking: the smile, nod, and thank you from the person ringing the bell, the lack of guilt - some of us (myself included) feel that when we walk buy and do not contribute, or maybe just the warm glow inside (linking back to family and "feeling loved" we have learned from our own previous experiences that Michael mentioned in class) - ooh, or maybe its so that later in casual conversations we can mention it to friends (as a sublte, "see, I am so giving"). So are we doing it because we innately do not want to have others suffer? And if so, is that truly internal? Even if we do contribute because we have developed an ethic of giving to those less fortunate, is it ultimately to ease our own guilt for having so much?

I want to believe there is more... but I do not know how to reconcile it.