Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Content theory
View on WikipediaThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Content theories are theories about the internal factors that motivate people. They typically focus on the goals that people aim to achieve and the needs, drives, and desires that influence their behavior. Content theories contrast with process theories, which examine the cognitive, emotional, and decision-making processes that underlie human motivation. Influential content theories are Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory, and David McClelland's learned needs theory.[1]
McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y
[edit]Douglas McGregor proposed two different motivational theories. Managers tend to believe one or the other and treat their employees accordingly. Theory X states that employees dislike and try to avoid work, so they must be coerced into doing it. Most workers do not want responsibilities, lack ambition, and value job security more than anything else.[2]
McGregor personally held that the more optimistic theory, Y, was more valid. This theory holds that employees can view work as natural, are creative, can be self-motivated, and appreciate responsibility. This type of thinking is popular now, with people becoming more aware of the productivity of self-empowered work teams.[3]
ERG theory
[edit]ERG Theory was introduced by Clayton Alderfer as an extension to the famous Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.[4] In this theory, the existence or physiological needs are at the base. These include the needs for things such as food, drink, shelter, and safety. Next come the Relatedness Needs, the need to feel connected to other individuals or a group. These needs are fulfilled by establishing and maintaining relationships.
At the top of the hierarchy are Growth Needs, the needs for personal achievement and self-actualization. If a person is continuously frustrated in trying to satisfy growth needs, relatedness needs will re-emerge. This phenomenon is known as the frustration-regression process.
Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene theory (Two-factor theory)
[edit]Frederick Herzberg felt that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not exist on the same continuum, but on dual scales. In other words, certain things, which Herzberg called hygiene factors, could cause a person to become unhappy with their job. These things, including pay, job security, and physical work environment, could never bring about job satisfaction. Motivating factors, on the other hand, can increase job satisfaction. Giving employees things such as a sense of recognition, responsibility, or achievement can bring satisfaction about.[citation needed]
Need theory
[edit]David McClelland proposed a context for understanding the needs in people, which holds significance in understanding their motivations and behaviors. It is subdivided into three categories: the Need for Achievement, the Need for Affiliation, and the Need for Power.[5]
The Need for Achievement refers to the notion of getting ahead and succeeding. The Need for Affiliation is the desire to be around people and be well received socially. It also includes the desire for being a member in a group and conformity. The Need for Power is the desire for control over others and over yourself. It confers the need to be able to exercise direction in the world surrounding you, and cause things to happen. Individuals who have high needs for achievement will tend to engage in competitive activities in order to fulfill this desire. Individuals who need to feel affiliated will tend to join clubs, groups and teams to satiate that want. Individuals who have the need for power will seek activities which likewise satisfy this need, such as, running for high positions in organizations and seeking opportunities to exercise that dominance.
This is not to say that one person cannot have needs spanning all three categories. A person may have the need for affiliation at the same time they have the need for power. While this may initially seem contradictory, there are instances where both needs can be fulfilled. Also, timing may connote different strengths of needs at different moments. So, while a person may strongly feel the need to affiliate during times of loneliness, they may at another time feel the strong need for power when instructed to organize an event. Needs may arise and change along with a change of context.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
[edit]
Content theory of human motivation includes both Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's two-factor theory. Maslow's theory is one of the most widely discussed theories of motivation. Abraham Maslow believed that man is inherently good and argued that individuals possess a constantly growing inner drive that has great potential. The needs hierarchy system is a commonly used scheme for classifying human motives.[6]
The American motivation psychologist Abraham H. Maslow (1954) developed the hierarchy of needs consisting of five hierarchic classes. According to Maslow, people are motivated by unsatisfied needs. The needs, listed from basic (lowest-earliest) to most complex (highest-latest) are as follows:[7]
- Physiology (hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.)
- Safety/Security/Shelter/Health
- Social/Love/Friendship
- Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement
- Self actualization/achievement of full potential
The basic requirements build upon the first step in the pyramid: physiology. If there are deficits on this level, all behavior will be oriented to satisfy this deficit. Essentially, if a person has not slept or eaten adequately, he or she will not be interested in their self-esteem desires. Subsequently, we have the second level, which awakens a need for security. After securing those two levels, the motives shift to the social sphere, the third level. Psychological requirements comprise the fourth level, while the top of the hierarchy consists of self-realization and self-actualization.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory can be summarized as follows:
- Human beings have wants and desires which, when unsatisfied, may influence behavior.
- Differing levels of importance to human life are reflected in a hierarchical structure of needs.
- Needs at higher levels in the hierarchy are held in abeyance until lower-level needs are at least minimally satisfied.
- Needs at higher levels of the hierarchy are associated with individuality , humanness, and psychological health.
Sex, Hedonism, and Evolution
[edit]One of the first influential figures to discuss the topic of hedonism was Socrates, and he did so around 470–399 BCE in ancient Greece. Hedonism, as Socrates described it, is the motivation wherein a person will behave in a manner that will maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The only instance in which a person will behave in a manner that results in more pain than pleasure is when the knowledge of the effects of the behavior is lacking. Sex is one of the pleasures people pursue.[8][9]
Sex is on the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is a necessary physiological need like air, warmth, or sleep, and if the body lacks it will not function optimally. Without the orgasm that comes with sex, a person will experience "pain," and as hedonism would predict, a person will minimize this pain by pursuing sex. That being said, sex as a basic need is different from the need for sexual intimacy, which is located on the third level in Maslow's hierarchy.[8]
There are multiple theories for why sex is a strong motivation, and many fall under the theory of evolution. On an evolutionary level, the motivation for sex likely has to do with a species' ability to reproduce. Species that reproduce more, survive and pass on their genes. Therefore, species have a sexual desire that leads to sexual intercourse as a means to create more offspring. Without this innate motivation, a species may determine that attaining intercourse is too costly in terms of effort, energy, and danger.[8][10]
In addition to sexual desire, the motivation for romantic love runs parallel in having an evolutionary function for the survival of a species. On an emotional level, romantic love satiates a psychological need for belonging. Therefore, this is another hedonistic pursuit of pleasure. From the evolutionary perspective, romantic love creates bonds with the parents of offspring. This bond will make it so that the parents will stay together and take care of and protect the offspring until it is independent. By rearing the child together, it increases the chances that the offspring will survive and pass on its genes themselves, therefore continuing the survival of the species. Without the romantic love bond, the male will pursue satiation of his sexual desire with as many mates as possible, leaving behind the female to rear the offspring by herself. Child-rearing with one parent is more difficult and provides less assurance of the offspring's survival than with two parents. Romantic love therefore solves the commitment problem of parents needing to be together; individuals that are loyal and faithful to one another will have mutual survival benefits.[8][11][12]
Additionally, under the umbrella of evolution, is Darwin's term sexual selection. This refers to how the female selects the male for reproduction. The male is motivated to attain sex because of all the aforementioned reasons, but how he attains it can vary based on his qualities. For some females, they are motivated by the will to survive mostly, and will prefer a mate that can physically defend her, or financially provide for her (among humans). Some females are more attracted to charm, as it is an indicator of being a good loyal lover that will in turn make for a dependable child-rearing partner. Altogether, sex is a hedonistic pleasure-seeking behavior that satiates physical and psychological needs and is instinctively guided by principles of evolution.[8][13]
Self-determination theory
[edit]Since the early 1970s Deci[14] and Ryan have developed and tested their self-determination theory (SDT). SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function and growth: competence,[15][16] relatedness,[17] and autonomy.[18][19] These three psychological needs are suggested to be essential for psychological health & well-being along with behavioral motivation.[20] There are three essential elements to the theory:[21]
- Humans are inherently proactive with their potential and at mastering their inner forces (such as drive and emotions).
- Humans have an inherent tendency towards growth, development, and integrated functioning.
- Optimal development and actions are inherent in humans but they do not happen automatically.
Within Self-Determination Theory, Deci and Ryan[22] distinguish between four different types of extrinsic motivation, differing in their levels of perceived autonomy:
- External regulation: This is the least autonomous of the four and is determined by external punishment or reward.
- Introjected regulation: This form of external motivation arises when the individuals have somewhat internalized regulations but do not fully accept them as their own. They may comply for self-esteem reasons or social acceptability - essentially internal reasons but externally driven.
- Identified regulation: This is more autonomously driven - when the individuals consciously perceive the actions as valuable.
- Integrated regulation: This is the most autonomous form of motivation and the action has been internalized and is aligned with the individual's values, beliefs and is perceived as necessary for their wellbeing. However, this is still classified as extrinsic motivation as it is still driven by external processes and not by inherent enjoyment for the task itself.
"16 basic desires" theory
[edit]Starting from studies involving more than 6,000 people, Reiss proposed that 16 basic desires guide nearly all human behavior.[23] In this model the basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities are:
- Acceptance, the need for approval
- Curiosity, the need to learn
- Eating, the need for food
- Family, the need to raise children
- Honor, the need to be loyal to the traditional values of one's clan/ethnic group
- Idealism, the need for social justice
- Independence, the need for individuality
- Order, the need for organized, stable, predictable environments
- Physical activity, the need for exercise
- Power, the need for influence of will
- Romance, the need for sex and for beauty
- Saving, the need to collect
- Social contact, the need for friends (peer relationships)
- Social status, the need for social standing/importance
- Tranquility, the need to be safe
- Vengeance, the need to strike back and to compete
Natural theories
[edit]The natural system assumes that people have higher-order needs, which contrasts with the rational theory that suggests that people dislike work and only respond to rewards and punishment.[24] According to McGregor's Theory Y, human behavior is based on satisfying a hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, social, ego, and self-fulfillment.[25]
Physiological needs are the lowest and the most important level. These fundamental requirements include food, rest, shelter, and exercise. After the physiological needs are satisfied, employees can focus on safety needs, which include "protection against danger, threat and deprivation".[25] However, if management makes arbitrary or biased employment decisions, then an employee's safety needs are unfulfilled.
The next set of needs is social, which refers to the desire for acceptance, affiliation, reciprocal friendships, and love. As such, the natural system of management assumes that close-knit work teams are productive. Accordingly, if an employee's social needs are unmet, then he will act disobediently.[25]
There are two types of egoistic needs, the second-highest order of needs. The first type refers to one's self-esteem, which encompasses self-confidence, independence, achievement, competence, and knowledge. The second type of needs deals with reputation, status, recognition, and respect from colleagues.[25] Egoistic needs are much more difficult to satisfy.
The highest order of needs is for self-fulfillment, including recognition of one's full potential, areas for self-improvement, and the opportunity for creativity. This differs from the rational system, which assumes that people prefer routine and security to creativity.[24] Unlike the rational management system, which assumes that humans do not care about these higher-order needs, the natural system is based on these needs as a means for motivation.
The author of the reductionist motivation model is Sigmund Freud. According to the model, physiological needs raise tension, thereby forcing an individual to seek an outlet by satisfying those needs Ziegler, Daniel (1992). Personality Theories: Basic Assumptions, Research, and Applications.
Self-management through teamwork
[edit]To successfully manage and motivate employees, the natural system posits that being a part of a group is necessary.[26] Because of structural changes in the social order, the workplace is more fluid and adaptive according to Mayo. As a result, individual employees have lost their sense of stability and security, which can be provided by being a member of a group. However, if teams continuously change within jobs, then employees feel anxious, empty, and irrational and become harder to work with.[26] The innate desire for lasting human association and management "is not related to single workers, but always to working groups."[26] In groups, employees will self-manage and form relevant customs, duties, and traditions.
Wage incentives
[edit]Humans are motivated by additional factors besides wage incentives.[27] Unlike the rational theory of motivation, people are not driven toward economic interests per the natural system. For instance, the straight piecework system pays employees based on each unit of their output. Based on studies such as the Bank Wiring Observation Room, using a piece rate incentive system does not lead to higher production.[27] Employees actually set upper limits on each person's daily output. These actions stand "in direct opposition to the ideas underlying their system of financial incentive, which countenanced no upper limit to performance other than the physical capacity of the individual".[27] Therefore, as opposed to the rational system that depends on economic rewards and punishments, the natural system of management assumes that humans are also motivated by non-economic factors.
Autonomy: increased motivation for autonomous tasks
[edit]Employees seek autonomy and responsibility in their work, contrary to assumptions of the rational theory of management. Because supervisors have direct authority over employees, they must ensure that the employee's actions are in line with the standards of efficient conduct.[27] This creates a sense of restriction on the employee and these constraints are viewed as "annoying and seemingly functioned only as subordinating or differentiating mechanisms."[27] Accordingly, the natural management system assumes that employees prefer autonomy and responsibility on the job and dislike arbitrary rules and overwhelming supervision. An individual's motivation to complete a task is increased when the task is autonomous. When the motivation to complete a task comes from an "external pressure" that pressure then "undermines" the person's motivation, and as a result decreases the person's desire to complete the task.[28]
Rational motivations
[edit]The idea that human beings are rational and that the human behavior is guided by reason is an old one. However, recent research (on satisfying for example) has significantly undermined the idea of homo economicus or of perfect rationality in favor of a more bounded rationality. The field of behavioral economics is particularly concerned with the limits of rationality in economic agents.[29]
Incentive theories: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
[edit]Motivation can be divided into two different theories known as intrinsic (internal or inherent in the activity itself) motivation and extrinsic (contingent on external rewards or punishment) motivation.
Intrinsic motivation
[edit]Intrinsic motivation has been studied since the early 1970s. Intrinsic motivation is a behavior that is driven by satisfying internal rewards. For example, an athlete may enjoy playing football for the experience, rather than for an award.[30] It is an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on external pressures or a desire for consideration. Deci (1971) explained that some activities provide their own inherent reward, meaning certain activities are not dependent on external rewards.[31] The phenomenon of intrinsic motivation was first acknowledged within experimental studies of animal behavior. In these studies, it was evident that the organisms would engage in playful and curiosity-driven behaviors in the absence of reward. Intrinsic motivation is a natural motivational tendency and is a critical element in cognitive, social, and physical development.[32] The two necessary elements for intrinsic motivation are self-determination and an increase in perceived competence.[33] In short, the cause of the behavior must be internal, known as internal locus of causality, and the individual who engages in the behavior must perceive that the task increases their competence.[34] According to various research reported by Deci's published findings in 1971, and 1972, tangible rewards could actually undermine the intrinsic motivation of college students. However, these studies did not just affect college students: Kruglanski, Friedman, and Zeevi (1971) repeated this study and found that symbolic and material rewards can undermine not just high school students, but preschool students as well.
Students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to engage in the task willingly as well as work to improve their skills, which will increase their capabilities.[35] Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they...
- attribute their educational results to factors under their own control, also known as autonomy or locus of control
- believe they have the skills to be effective agents in reaching their desired goals, also known as self-efficacy beliefs
- are interested in mastering a topic, not just in achieving good grades
- do not act from pressure, but from interest
An example of intrinsic motivation is when an employee becomes an IT professional because he or she wants to learn about how computer users interact with computer networks. The employee has the intrinsic motivation to gain more knowledge, and will continue to want to learn even in the face of failure.[36] Art for art's sake is an example of intrinsic motivation in the domain of art.
Traditionally, researchers thought of motivations to use computer systems to be primarily driven by extrinsic purposes; however, many modern systems have their use driven primarily by intrinsic motivations.[37] Examples of such systems used primarily to fulfill users' intrinsic motivations, include on-line gaming, virtual worlds, online shopping,[38] learning/education, online dating, digital music repositories, social networking, online pornography, gamified systems, and general gamification. Even traditional management information systems (e.g., ERP, CRM) are being 'gamified' such that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations must increasingly be considered. Deci's findings did not come without controversy. Articles stretching over the span of 25 years from the perspective of behavioral theory argue that there is not enough evidence to explain intrinsic motivation and this theory would inhibit "scientific progress". As stated above, we now can see technology such as various forms of computer systems are highly intrinsic.[31]
Not only can intrinsic motivation be used in a personal setting, but it can also be implemented and utilized in a social environment. Instead of attaining mature desires, such as those presented above via the internet which can be attained on one's own, intrinsic motivation can be used to assist extrinsic motivation to attain a goal. For example, Eli, a 4-year-old with autism, wants to achieve the goal of playing with a toy train.[39] To get the toy, he must first communicate to his therapist that he wants it. His desire to play is strong enough to be considered intrinsic motivation because it is a natural feeling, and his desire to communicate with his therapist to get the train can be considered extrinsic motivation because the outside object is a reward (see incentive theory). Communicating with the therapist is the first, the slightly more challenging goal that stands in the way of achieving his larger goal of playing with the train. Achieving these goals in attainable pieces is also known as the goal-setting theory. The three elements of goal-setting (STD) are Specific, Time-bound, and Difficult. Specifically, goals should be set in the 90th percentile of difficulty.[40]
Intrinsic motivation comes from one's desire to achieve or attain a goal.[30] Pursuing challenges and goals come easier and more enjoyable when one is intrinsically motivated to complete a certain objective because the individual is more interested in learning, rather than achieving the goal.[34] Edward Deci and Richard Ryan's theory of intrinsic motivation is essentially examining the conditions that "elicit and sustain" this phenomenon.[32]: 70–71 Deci and Ryan coined the term "cognitive evaluation theory" which concentrates on the needs of competence and autonomy. The CET essentially states that social-contextual events like feedback and reinforcement can cause feelings of competence and therefore increase intrinsic motivation. However, feelings of competence will not increase intrinsic motivation if there is no sense of autonomy. In situations where choices, feelings, and opportunities are present, intrinsic motivation is increased because people feel a greater sense of autonomy.[32]: 70–71 Offering people choices, responding to their feelings, and opportunities for self-direction have been reported to enhance intrinsic motivation via increased autonomy.[41][32]
An advantage (relative to extrinsic motivation) is that intrinsic motivators can be long-lasting, self-sustaining, and satisfying.[32] For this reason, efforts in education sometimes attempt to modify intrinsic motivation with the goal of promoting future student learning performance, creativity, and learning via long-term modifications in interests.[30] Intrinsic motivation has been found to be hard to modify, and attempts to recruit existing intrinsic motivators require a non-trivially difficult individualized approach, identifying and making relevant the different motivators needed to motivate different students,[30] possibly requiring additional skills and intrinsic motivation from the instructor.[42] In a workplace situation, intrinsic motivation is likely to be rare and risks being falsely identified, as most workers will always be subject to extrinsic motivation such as the fear of unemployment, the need to gain a living and fear of rejection by coworkers in cases of poor performance.[43]
Extrinsic motivation
[edit]Extrinsic motivation comes from influences outside of the individual. In extrinsic motivation, the harder question to answer is where do people get the motivation to carry out and continue to push with persistence. Usually, extrinsic motivation is used to attain outcomes that a person would not get from intrinsic motivation.[32] Common extrinsic motivations are rewards (for example money or grades) for showing the desired behavior, and the threat of punishment following misbehavior. Competition is an extrinsic motivator because it encourages the performer to win and to beat others, not simply to enjoy the intrinsic rewards of the activity. A cheering crowd and the desire to win a trophy are also extrinsic incentives.[44] For example, if an individual plays the sport tennis to receive an award, that would be extrinsic motivation. VS. if the individual plays because he or she enjoys the game, which would be intrinsic motivation.[30]
The most simple distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is the type of reasons or goals that lead to an action. While intrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable and satisfying, extrinsic motivation, refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome.[32] Extrinsic motivation thus contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which is doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, instead of for its instrumental value.[30]
Social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead to overjustification and a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation. In one study demonstrating this effect, children who expected to be (and were) rewarded with a ribbon and a gold star for drawing pictures spent less time playing with the drawing materials in subsequent observations than children who were assigned to an unexpected reward condition.[45] This shows how if an individual expects an award they do not care about the outcome. VS. if an individual does not expect a reward they will care more about the task.[32] However, another study showed that third graders who were rewarded with a book showed more reading behavior in the future, implying that some rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation.[46] While the provision of extrinsic rewards might reduce the desirability of an activity, the use of extrinsic constraints, such as the threat of punishment, against performing an activity has actually been found to increase one's intrinsic interest in that activity. In one study, when children were given mild threats against playing with an attractive toy, it was found that the threat actually served to increase the child's interest in the toy, which was previously undesirable to the child in the absence of threat.[47]
Advantages of extrinsic motivators are that they easily promote motivation to work and persist to goal completion. Rewards are tangible and beneficial.[32] A disadvantage for extrinsic motivators relative to internal is that work does not persist long once external rewards are removed. As the task is completed for the reward, the quality of work may need to be monitored,[30] and it has been suggested that extrinsic motivators may diminish in value over time.[32]
Flow theory
[edit]Flow theory refers to desirable subjective state a person experiences when completely involved in some challenging activity that matches the individual's skills.[48]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described Flow theory as "A state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience is so enjoyable that people will continue to do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it."[49]
The idea of flow theory was first conceptualized by Csikszentmihalyi. Flow in the context of motivation can be seen as an activity that is not too hard, frustrating or madding, or too easy boring and done too fast. If one has achieved perfect flow, then the activity has reached maximum potential.[49]
Flow is a part of something called positive psychology of the psychology of happiness. Positive psychology looks into what makes a person happy. Flow can be considered as achieving happiness or at the very least positive feelings. A study that was published in the journal Emotion looked at flow experienced in college students playing Tetris. The students that were being evaluated on looks then told to wait and play Tetris. There were three categories; Easy, normal, and hard. The students that played Tetris on normal level experienced flow and were less stressed about the evaluation.[50]
Csikszentmihalyi describes 8 characteristics of flow as - the complete concentration on the task, clarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback, transformation of time (speeding up/slowing down of time), the experience is intrinsically rewarding, effortlessness and ease, a balance between challenge and skills, merged actions and awareness, loss of self-conscious rumination and a feeling of control over the task.[49]
The activity no longer becomes something seen as a means to an end and it becomes something an individual wants to do. This can be seen as someone who likes to run for the sheer joy of running and not because they need to do it for exercise or because they want to brag about it. Peak flow can be different for each person. It could take an individual years to reach flow or only moments. If an individual becomes too good at an activity they can become bored. If the challenge becomes too hard then the individual could become discouraged and want to quit.[51]
Behaviorist theories
[edit]While many theories on motivation have a mentalistic perspective, behaviorists focus only on the observable behavior and the theories founded on experimental evidence. In the view of behaviorism, motivation is understood as a question about what factors cause, prevent, or withhold various behaviors, while the question of, for instance, conscious motivation would be ignored. Where others would speculate about such things as values, drives, or needs, that may not be observed directly, behaviorists are interested in the observable variables that affect the type, intensity, frequency, and duration of the observable behavior. Through the basic research of such scientists as Pavlov, Watson and Skinner, several basic mechanisms that govern behavior have been identified. The most important of these are classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
Classical and operant conditioning
[edit]In classical (or respondent) conditioning, behavior is understood as responses triggered by certain environmental or physical stimuli. They can be unconditioned, such as in-born reflexes, or learned through the pairing of an unconditioned stimulus with a different stimulus, which then becomes a conditioned stimulus. In relation to motivation, classical conditioning might be seen as one explanation as to why an individual performs certain responses and behaviors in certain situations.[52][53] For instance, a dentist might wonder why a patient does not seem motivated to show up for an appointment, with the explanation being that the patient has associated the dentist (conditioned stimulus) with the pain (unconditioned stimulus) that elicits a fear response (conditioned response), leading to the patient being reluctant to visit the dentist.
In operant conditioning, the type and frequency of behavior are determined mainly by its consequences. If a certain behavior, in the presence of a certain stimulus, is followed by a desirable consequence (a reinforcer), the emitted behavior will increase in frequency in the future, in the presence of the stimulus that preceded the behavior (or a similar one). Conversely, if the behavior is followed by something undesirable (a punisher), the behavior is less likely to occur in the presence of the stimulus. In a similar manner, the removal of a stimulus directly following the behavior might either increase or decrease the frequency of that behavior in the future (negative reinforcement or punishment).[52][53] For instance, a student that gained praise and a good grade after turning in a paper, might seem more motivated in writing papers in the future (positive reinforcement); if the same student put in a lot of work on a task without getting any praise for it, he or she might seem less motivated to do school work in the future (negative punishment). If a student starts to cause trouble in the class gets punished with something he or she dislikes, such as detention (positive punishment), that behavior would decrease in the future. The student might seem more motivated to behave in class, presumably in order to avoid further detention (negative reinforcement).
The strength of reinforcement or punishment is dependent on schedule and timing. A reinforcer or punisher affects the future frequency of a behavior most strongly if it occurs within seconds of the behavior. A behavior that is reinforced intermittently, at unpredictable intervals, will be more robust and persistent, compared to the ones that are reinforced every time the behavior is performed.[52][53] For example, if the misbehaving student in the above example was punished a week after the troublesome behavior, that might not affect future behavior.
In addition to these basic principles, environmental stimuli also affect behavior. Behavior is punished or reinforced in the context of whatever stimuli were present just before the behavior was performed, which means that a particular behavior might not be affected in every environmental context, or situation, after it is punished or reinforced in one specific context.[52][53] A lack of praise for school-related behavior might, for instance, not decrease after-school sports-related behavior that is usually reinforced by praise.
The various mechanisms of operant conditioning may be used to understand the motivation for various behaviors by examining what happens just after the behavior (the consequence), in what context the behavior is performed or not performed (the antecedent), and under what circumstances (motivating operators).[52][53]
Incentive motivation
[edit]Incentive theory is a specific theory of motivation, derived partly from behaviorist principles of reinforcement, which concerns an incentive or motive to do something. The most common incentive would be a compensation. Compensation can be tangible or intangible. It helps in motivating the employees in their corporate life, students in academics, and inspire them to do more and more to achieve profitability in every field. Studies show that if the person receives the reward immediately, the effect is greater, and decreases as delay lengthens.[citation needed] Repetitive action-reward combination can cause the action to become a habit[citation needed]
"Reinforcers and reinforcement principles of behavior differ from the hypothetical construct of reward." A reinforcer is anything that follows an action, with the intention that the action will now occur more frequently. From this perspective, the concept of distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic forces is irrelevant.
Incentive theory in psychology treats motivation and behavior of the individual as they are influenced by beliefs, such as engaging in activities that are expected to be profitable. Incentive theory is promoted by behavioral psychologists, such as B.F. Skinner. Incentive theory is especially supported by Skinner in his philosophy of Radical behaviorism, meaning that a person's actions always have social ramifications: and if actions are positively received, people are more likely to act in this manner, or if negatively received people are less likely to act in this manner.
Incentive theory distinguishes itself from other motivation theories, such as drive theory, in the direction of the motivation. In incentive theory, stimuli "attract" a person towards them, and push them towards the stimulus. In terms of behaviorism, incentive theory involves positive reinforcement: the reinforcing stimulus has been conditioned to make the person happier. As opposed to in drive theory, which involves negative reinforcement: a stimulus has been associated with the removal of the punishment—the lack of homeostasis in the body. For example, a person has come to know that if they eat when hungry, it will eliminate that negative feeling of hunger, or if they drink when thirsty, it will eliminate that negative feeling of thirst.[54]
Motivating operations
[edit]Motivating operations, MOs, relate to the field of motivation in that they help improve understanding aspects of behavior that are not covered by operant conditioning. In operant conditioning, the function of the reinforcer is to influence future behavior. The presence of a stimulus believed to function as a reinforcer does not according to this terminology explain the current behavior of an organism – only previous instances of reinforcement of that behavior (in the same or similar situations) do. Through the behavior-altering effect of MOs, it is possible to affect the current behavior of an individual, giving another piece of the puzzle of motivation.
Motivating operations are factors that affect learned behavior in a certain context. MOs have two effects: a value-altering effect, which increases or decreases the efficiency of a reinforcer, and a behavior-altering effect, which modifies learned behavior that has previously been punished or reinforced by a particular stimulus.[52]
When a motivating operation causes an increase in the effectiveness of a reinforcer or amplifies a learned behavior in some way (such as increasing frequency, intensity, duration, or speed of the behavior), it functions as an establishing operation, EO. A common example of this would be food deprivation, which functions as an EO in relation to food: the food-deprived organism will perform behaviors previously related to the acquisition of food more intensely, frequently, longer, or faster in the presence of food, and those behaviors would be especially strongly reinforced.[52] For instance, a fast-food worker earning minimal wage, forced to work more than one job to make ends meet, would be highly motivated by a pay raise, because of the current deprivation of money (a conditioned establishing operation). The worker would work hard to try to achieve the raise, and getting the raise would function as an especially strong reinforcer of work behavior.
Conversely, a motivating operation that causes a decrease in the effectiveness of a reinforcer, or diminishes a learned behavior related to the reinforcer, functions as an abolishing operation, AO. Again using the example of food, satiation of food prior to the presentation of a food stimulus would produce a decrease on food-related behaviors, and diminish or completely abolish the reinforcing effect of acquiring and ingesting the food.[52] Consider the board of a large investment bank, concerned with a too small profit margin, deciding to give the CEO a new incentive package in order to motivate him to increase firm profits. If the CEO already has a lot of money, the incentive package might not be a very good way to motivate him, because he would be satiated on the money. Getting even more money would not be a strong reinforcer for profit-increasing behavior, and would not elicit increased intensity, frequency, or duration of profit-increasing behavior.
Motivation and psychotherapy
[edit]Motivation lies at the core of many behaviorist approaches to psychological treatment. A person with autism-spectrum the disorder is seen as lacking motivation to perform socially relevant behaviors – social stimuli are not as reinforcing for people with autism compared to other people. Depression is understood as a lack of reinforcement (especially positive reinforcement) leading to the extinction of behavior in the depressed individual. A patient with specific phobia is not motivated to seek out the phobic stimulus because it acts as a punisher, and is over-motivated to avoid it (negative reinforcement). In accordance, therapies have been designed to address these problems, such as EIBI and CBT for major depression and specific phobia.
Socio-cultural theory
[edit]Sociocultural theory (also known as Social Motivation) emphasizes the impact of activity and actions mediated through social interaction, and within social contexts. Sociocultural theory represents a shift from traditional theories of motivation, which view the individual's innate drives or mechanistic operand learning as primary determinants of motivation. Critical elements to socio-cultural theory applied to motivation include, but are not limited to, the role of social interactions and the contributions from culturally-based knowledge and practice.[40] Sociocultural theory extends the social aspects of Cognitive Evaluation Theory, which espouses the important role of positive feedback from others during the action,[32] but requires the individual as the internal locus of causality. Sociocultural theory predicts that motivation has an external locus of causality, and is socially distributed among the social group.[40]
Motivation can develop through an individual's involvement within their cultural group. Personal motivation often comes from activities a person believes to be central to the everyday occurrences in their community.[55] An example of socio-cultural theory would be social settings where people work together to solve collective problems. Although individuals will have internalized goals, they will also develop internalized goals of others, as well as new interests and goals collectively with those that they feel socially connected to.[56] Oftentimes, it is believed that all cultural groups are motivated in the same way. However, motivation can come from different child-rearing practices and cultural behaviors that greatly vary between cultural groups.
In some indigenous cultures, collaboration between children and adults in the community and household tasks is seen as very important[57] A child from an indigenous community may spend a great deal of their time alongside family and community members doing different tasks and chores that benefit the community. After having seen the benefits of collaboration and work, and also have the opportunity to be included, the child will be intrinsically motivated to participate in similar tasks. In this example, because the adults in the community do not impose the tasks upon the children, the children therefore feel self-motivated and have a desire to participate and learn through the task.[58] As a result of the community values that surround the child, their source of motivation may vary according to the different communities and their different values.
In more Westernized communities, segregation between adults and children participating in work-related tasks is a common practice. As a result of this, these adolescents demonstrate less internalized motivation to do things within their environment than their parents. However, when the motivation to participate in activities is a prominent belief within the family, the adolescents autonomy is significantly higher. This therefore demonstrates that when collaboration and non-segregative tasks are norms within a child's upbringing, their internal motivation to participate in community tasks increases.[59] When given opportunities to work collaboratively with adults on shared tasks during childhood, children will therefore become more intrinsically motivated through adulthood.[60]
Social motivation is tied to one's activity in a group. It cannot form from a single mind alone. For example, bowling alone is naught but the dull act of throwing a ball into pins, and so people are much less likely to smile during the activity alone, even upon getting a strike because their satisfaction or dissatisfaction does not need to be communicated, and so it is internalized. However, when with a group, people are more inclined to smile regardless of their results because it acts as a positive communication that is beneficial for pleasurable interaction and teamwork.[56] Thus the act of bowling becomes a social activity as opposed to a dull action because it becomes an exercise in interaction, competition, team building and sportsmanship. It is because of this phenomenon that studies have shown that people are more intrigued in performing mundane activities so long as there is company because it provides the opportunity to interact in one way or another, be it for bonding, amusement, collaboration, or alternative perspectives.[56] Examples of activities that one may not be motivated to do alone but could be done with others for the social benefit are things such as throwing and catching a baseball with a friend, making funny faces with children, building a treehouse, and performing a debate.
Push and pull
[edit]Push
[edit]Push motivations are those where people push themselves towards their goals or to achieve something, such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation, prestige, health and fitness, adventure, and social interaction.[61]
However, with push motivation, it's also easy to get discouraged when there are obstacles present in the path of achievement. Push motivation acts as a willpower and people's willpower is only as strong as the desire behind the willpower.[62]
Additionally, a study has been conducted on social networking and its push and pull effects. One thing that is mentioned is "Regret and dissatisfaction correspond to push factors because regret and dissatisfaction are the negative factors that compel users to leave their current service provider."[63] So we now know that Push motivations can also be a negative force. In this case, that negative force is regret and dissatisfaction.
Pull
[edit]Pull motivation is the opposite of push. It is a type of motivation that is much stronger. "Some of the factors are those that emerge as a result of the attractiveness of a destination as it is perceived by those with the propensity to travel. They include both tangible resources, such as beaches, recreation facilities, and cultural attractions, and traveler's perceptions and expectation, such as novelty, benefit expectation, and marketing image."[61] Pull motivation can be seen as the desire to achieve a goal so badly that it seems that the goal is pulling us toward it. That is why pull motivation is stronger than push motivation. It is easier to be drawn to something rather than to push yourself for something you desire. It can also be an alternative force when compared to negative force. From the same study as previously mentioned, "Regret and dissatisfaction with an existing SNS service provider may trigger a heightened interest toward switching service providers, but such a motive will likely translate into reality in the presence of a good alternative. Therefore, alternative attractiveness can moderate the effects of regret and dissatisfaction with switching intention"[63] And so, pull motivation can be an attracting desire when negative influences come into the picture.
Self-control
[edit]The self-control aspect of motivation is increasingly considered to be a subset of emotional intelligence;[64] it is suggested that although a person may be classed as highly intelligent (as measured by many traditional intelligence tests), they may remain unmotivated to pursue intellectual endeavors. Vroom's "expectancy theory" provides an account of when people may decide to exert self-control in pursuit of a particular goal.
Drives
[edit]A drive or desire can be described as a deficiency or need that activates behavior that is aimed at a goal or an incentive.[65] These drives are thought to originate within the individual and may not require external stimuli to encourage the behavior. Basic drives could be sparked by deficiencies such as hunger, which motivates a person to seek food whereas more subtle drives might be the desire for praise and approval, which motivates a person to behave in a manner pleasing to others.
Another basic drive is the sexual drive which just like food motivates us because it is essential to our survival.[66] The desire for sex is wired deep into the brain of all human beings as glands secrete hormones that travel through the blood to the brain and stimulates the onset of sexual desire.[66] The hormone involved in the initial onset of sexual desire is called Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).[66] The hormonal basis of both men and women's sex drives is testosterone.[66] [need quotation to verify] Men naturally have more testosterone than women do and so are more likely than women to think about sex.[66] [need quotation to verify]
Drive-reduction theory
[edit]Drive theory grows out of the concept that people have certain biological drives, such as hunger and thirst. As time passes, the strength of the drive increases if it is not satisfied (in this case by eating). Upon satisfying a drive, the drive's strength is reduced. Created by Clark Hull and further developed by Kenneth Spence, the theory became well known in the 1940s and 1950s. Many of the motivational theories that arose during the 1950s and 1960s were either based on Hull's original theory or were focused on providing alternatives to the drive-reduction theory, including Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which emerged as an alternative to Hull's approach.[67]
Drive theory has some intuitive validity. For instance, when preparing food, the drive model appears to be compatible with sensations of rising hunger as the food is prepared, and, after the food has been consumed, a decrease in subjective hunger.[68] There are several problems, however, that leave the validity of drive reduction open for debate[which?].
Cognitive dissonance theory
[edit]As suggested by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences some degree of discomfort resulting from an inconsistency between two cognitions: their views on the world around them and their own personal feelings and actions.[citation needed] For example, a consumer may seek to reassure themselves regarding a purchase, feeling that another decision may have been preferable. Their feeling that another purchase would have been preferable is inconsistent with their action of purchasing the item. The difference between their feelings and beliefs causes dissonance, so they seek to reassure themselves.
While not a theory of motivation, per se, the theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. The cognitive miser perspective makes people want to justify things in a simple way in order to reduce the effort they put into cognition. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, or actions, rather than facing the inconsistencies, because dissonance is a mental strain. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Temporal motivation theory
[edit]A recent approach in developing a broad, integrative theory of motivation is temporal motivation theory. Introduced in a 2006 Academy of Management Review article,[69] it synthesizes into a single formulation, the primary aspects of several other major motivational theories, including Incentive Theory, Drive Theory, Need Theory, Self-Efficacy and Goal Setting. It simplifies the field of motivation and allows findings from one theory to be translated into the terms of another. Another journal article that helped to develop temporal motivation theory, "The Nature of Procrastination",[70] which received American Psychological Association's George A. Miller award for outstanding contribution to general science.
where Motivation is the desire for a particular outcome, Expectancy or self-efficacy is the probability of success, Value is the reward associated with the outcome, Impulsiveness is the individual's sensitivity to delay and Delay is the time to realization.[70]
Achievement motivation
[edit]Achievement motivation is an integrative perspective based on the premise that performance motivation results from the way broad components of personality are directed towards performance. As a result, it includes a range of dimensions that are relevant to success at work but which are not conventionally regarded as being part of performance motivation. The emphasis on performance seeks to integrate formerly separate approaches as need for achievement[71] with, for example, social motives like dominance. Personality is intimately tied to performance and achievement motivation, including such characteristics as tolerance for risk, fear of failure, and others.[72][73]
Achievement motivation can be measured by The Achievement Motivation Inventory, which is based on this theory and assesses three factors (in 17 separated scales) relevant to vocational and professional success. This motivation has repeatedly been linked with adaptive motivational patterns, including working hard, a willingness to pick learning tasks with much difficulty, and attributing success to effort.[74]
Achievement motivation was studied intensively by David C. McClelland, John W. Atkinson and their colleagues since the early 1950s.[75] This type of motivation is a drive that is developed from an emotional state. One may feel the drive to achieve by striving for success and avoiding failure. In achievement motivation, one would hope that they excel in what they do and not think much about the failures or the negatives.[76] Their research showed that business managers who were successful demonstrated a high need to achieve no matter the culture.
There are three major characteristics of people who have a great need to achieve according to McClelland's research.
- They would prefer a work environment in which they are able to assume responsibility for solving problems.
- They would take a calculated risk and establish moderate, attainable goals.
- They want to hear continuous recognition, as well as feedback, in order for them to know how well they are doing.[77]
Cognitive theories
[edit]Cognitive theories define motivation in terms of how people think about situations. Cognitive theories of motivation include goal-setting theory and expectancy theory.
Goal-setting theory
[edit]Goal-setting theory is based on the idea that individuals have a drive to reach a clearly defined end state. Often, this end state is a reward in itself. A goal's efficiency is affected by three features: proximity, difficulty, and specificity. One common goal setting methodology incorporates the SMART criteria, in which goals are: specific, measurable, attainable/achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Time management is an important aspect, when regarding time as a contributing factor to goal achievement. Having too much time allows for distraction and procrastination, which also serves as a distraction to the subject by steering their attention away from the original goal. An ideal goal should present a situation where the time between the beginning of the effort and the end state is close.[78] With an overly restricting time restraint, the subject could potentially feel overwhelmed, which could deter the subject from achieving the goal because the amount of time provided is not sufficient or rational.[79] This explains why some children are more motivated to learn how to ride a bike than to master algebra. A goal should be moderate, not too hard, or too easy to complete.[79]
Most people are not optimally motivated, as many want a challenge (which assumes some kind of insecurity of success). At the same time, people want to feel that there is a substantial probability that they will succeed. The goal should be objectively defined and understandable for the individual.[78] Similarly to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a larger end goal is easier to achieve if the subject has smaller, more attainable yet still challenging goals to achieve first in order to advance over a period of time.[79] A classic example of a poorly specified goal is trying to motivate oneself to run a marathon when s/he has not had proper training. A smaller, more attainable goal is to first motivate oneself to take the stairs instead of an elevator or to replace a stagnant activity, like watching television, with a mobile one, like spending time walking and eventually working up to a jog.[note 1]
Expectancy theory
[edit]Expectancy theory was proposed by Victor H. Vroom in 1964. Expectancy theory explains the behavior process in which an individual selects a behavior option over another, and why/how this decision is made in relation to their goal.
There's also an equation for this theory which goes as follows:
- or
- [80]
- M (Motivation) is the amount an individual will be motivated by the condition or environment they placed themselves in, which is based on the following. Hence the equation.
- E (Expectancy) is the person's perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, it's the person's assessment of how well and what kind of effort will relate to better performance.
- I (Instrumentality) is the person's perception that performance will be rewarded or punished.
- V (Valence) is the perceived amount of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance."[80]
Procrastination
[edit]Procrastination is the act to voluntarily postponing or delaying an intended course of action despite anticipating that you will be worse off because of that delay.[48] While procrastination was once seen as a harmless habit, recent studies indicate otherwise. In a 1997 study conducted by Dianne Tice and William James Fellow Roy Baumeister at Case Western University, college students were given ratings on an established scale of procrastination and tracked their academic performance, stress, and health throughout the semester. While procrastinators experienced some initial benefit in the form of lower stress levels (presumably by putting off their work at first), they ultimately earned lower grades and reported higher levels of stress and illness.[81]
Procrastination can be seen as a defense mechanism.[82] Because it is less demanding to simply avoid a task instead of dealing with the possibility of failure, procrastinators choose the short-term gratification of delaying a task over the long-term uncertainty of undertaking it. Procrastination can also be a justification for when the user ultimately has no choice but to undertake a task and performs below their standard. For example, a term paper could be seen as a daunting task. If the user puts it off until the night before, they can justify their poor score by telling themselves that they would have done better with more time. This kind of justification is extremely harmful and only helps to perpetuate the cycle of procrastination.[83]
Over the years, scientists have determined that not all procrastination is the same. The first type is chronic procrastinators whom exhibit a combination of qualities from the other, more specialized types of procrastinators. "Arousal" types are usually self-proclaimed "pressure performers" and relish the exhilaration of completing tasks close to the deadline. "Avoider" types procrastinate to avoid the outcome of whatever task they are pushing back - whether it be a potential failure or success. "Avoider" types are usually very self-conscious and care deeply about other people's opinions. Lastly, "Decisional" procrastinators avoid making decisions in order to protect themselves from the responsibility that follows the outcome of events.[84][failed verification]
Models of behavior change
[edit]Social-cognitive models of behavior change include the constructs of motivation and volition. Motivation is seen as a process that leads to the forming of behavioral intentions. Volition is seen as a process that leads from intention to actual behavior. In other words, motivation and volition refer to goal setting and goal pursuit, respectively. Both processes require self-regulatory efforts. Several self-regulatory constructs are needed to operate in orchestration to attain goals. An example of such a motivational and volitional construct is perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans, and the initiation of action. It can support the translation of intentions into action.
John W. Atkinson, David Birch and their colleagues developed the theory of "Dynamics of Action" to mathematically model change in behavior as a consequence of the interaction of motivation and associated tendencies toward specific actions.[85][86] The theory posits that change in behavior occurs when the tendency for a new, unexpressed behavior becomes dominant over the tendency currently motivating action. In the theory, the strength of tendencies rises and falls as a consequence of internal and external stimuli (sources of instigation), inhibitory factors, and consummatory in factors such as performing an action. In this theory, there are three causes responsible for behavior and change in behavior:
Thematic apperception test
[edit]Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) was developed by American psychologists Henry A. Murray and Christina D. Morgan at Harvard during the early 1930s. Their underlying goal was to test and discover the dynamics of personality such as internal conflict, dominant drives, and motives. Testing is derived from asking the individual to tell a story, given 31 pictures that they must choose ten to describe. To complete the assessment, each story created by the test subject must be carefully recorded and monitored to uncover underlying needs and patterns of reactions each subject perceives. After evaluation, two common methods of research, Defense Mechanisms Manual (DMM) and Social Cognition and Object Relations (SCOR), are used to score each test subject on different dimensions of the object and relational identification. From this, the underlying dynamics of each specific personality and specific motives and drives can be determined.
Attribution theory
[edit]Attribution theory describes individual's motivation to formulate explanatory attributions ("reasons") for events they experience, and how these beliefs affect their emotions and motivations.[89] Attributions are predicted to alter behavior, for instance attributing failure on a test to a lack of study might generate emotions of shame and motivate harder study. Important researchers include Fritz Heider and Bernard Weiner. Weiner's theory differentiates intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives. Intrapersonal includes self-directed thoughts and emotions that are attributed to the self. The interpersonal perspective includes beliefs about the responsibility of others and emotions directed at other people, for instance attributing blame to another individual.[90]
Approach versus avoidance
[edit]Approach motivation (i.e., incentive salience) can be defined as when a certain behavior or reaction to a situation/environment is rewarded or results in a positive or desirable outcome. In contrast, avoidance motivation (i.e., aversive salience) can be defined as when a certain behavior or reaction to a situation/environment is punished or results in a negative or undesirable outcome.[91][92] Research suggests that, all else being equal, avoidance motivations tend to be more powerful than approach motivations. Because people expect losses to have more powerful emotional consequences than equal-size gains, they will take more risks to avoid a loss than to achieve a gain.[91]
Conditioned taste aversion
[edit]A strong dislike (nausea reaction) for food because of prior Association with of that food with nausea or upset stomach.[8]
Conditioned taste aversion is the only type of conditioning that only needs one exposure. It does not need to be the specific food or drinks that cause the taste. Conditioned taste aversion can also be attributed to extenuating circumstances. An example of this can be eating a rotten apple. Eating the apple and then immediately throwing up. Now it is hard to even be near an apple without feeling sick. Conditioned taste aversion can also come about by the mere associations of two stimuli. Eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but also having the flu. Eating the sandwich makes one feel nauseous, so one throws up, now one cannot smell peanut butter without feeling queasy. Though eating the sandwich does not cause one to through up, they are still linked.[8]
Unconscious Motivation
[edit]In his book A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud explained his theory on the conscious-unconscious distinction.[93] To explain this relationship, he used a two-room metaphor. The smaller of the two rooms is filled with a person's preconscious, which is the thoughts, emotions, and memories that are available to a person's consciousness. This room also houses a person's consciousness, which is the part of the preconscious that is the focus at that given time. Connected to the small room is a much larger room that houses a person's unconscious. This part of the mind is unavailable to a person's consciousness and consists of impulses and repressed thoughts. The door between these two rooms acts as the person's mental censor. Its job is to keep anxiety-inducing thoughts and socially unacceptable behaviors or desires out of the preconscious. Freud describes the event of a thought or impulse being denied at the door as repression, one of the many defense mechanisms. This process is supposed to protect the individual from any embarrassment that could come from acting on these impulses or thoughts that exist in the unconscious.
In terms of motivation, Freud argues that unconscious instinctual impulses can still have great influence on behavior even though the person is not aware of the source.[94] When these instincts serve as a motive, the person is only aware of the goal of the motive, and not its actual source. He divides these instincts into sexual instincts, death instincts, and ego or self-preservation instincts. Sexual instincts are those that motivate humans to stay alive and ensure the continuation of mankind. On the other hand, Freud also maintains that humans have an inherent drive for self-destruction, or the death instinct. Similar to the devil and angel that everyone has on their shoulder, the sexual instinct and death instinct are constantly battling each other to both be satisfied. The death instinct can be closely related to Freud's other concept, the id, which is our need to experience pleasure immediately, regardless of the consequences. The last type of instinct that contributes to motivation is the ego or self-preservation instinct. This instinct is geared towards assuring that a person feels validated in whatever behavior or thought they have. The mental censor, or door between the unconscious and preconscious, helps satisfy this instinct. For example, one may be sexually attracted to a person, due to their sexual instinct, but the self-preservation instinct prevents them to act on this urge until that person finds that it is socially acceptable to do so. Quite similarly to his psychic theory that deals with the id, ego, and superego, Freud's theory of instincts highlights the interdependence of these three instincts. All three instincts serve as checks and balances system to control what instincts are acted on and what behaviors are used to satisfy as many of them at once.
Priming
[edit]Priming is a phenomenon, often used as an experimental technique, whereby a specific stimulus sensitizes the subject to later presentation of a similar stimulus.[95]
"Priming refers to an increased sensitivity to certain stimuli, resulting from prior exposure to related visual or audio messages. When an individual is exposed to the word "cancer," for example, and then offered the choice to smoke a cigarette, we expect that there is a greater probability that they will choose not to smoke as a result of the earlier exposure."[96]
Priming can affect motivation, in the way that we can be motived to do things by an outside source.
Priming can be linked with the mere exposure theory. People tend to like things that they have been exposed to before. Mere exposer theory is used by advertising companies to get people to buy their products. An example of this is seeing a picture of the product on a signboard and then buying that product later. If an individual is in a room with two strangers they are more likely to gravitate towards the person that they occasionally pass on the street, than the person that they have never seen before. An example of the use of mere exposure theory can be seen in product placements in movies and TV shows. We see a product that is in our favorite movie, and hence we are more inclined to buy that product when we see it again.[97]
Priming can fit into these categories; Semantic Priming, Visual Priming, Response Priming, Perceptual and Conceptual Priming, Positive and Negative Priming, Associative and Context Priming, and Olfactory Priming. Visual and Semantic priming is the most used in motivation. Most priming is linked with emotion, the stronger the emotion, the stronger the connection between memory and the stimuli.[96]
Priming also has an effect on drug users. In this case, it can be defined as, the reinstatement or increase in drug craving by a small dose of the drug or by stimuli associated with the drug. If a former drug user is in a place where they formerly did drugs, then they are tempted to do that same thing again even if they have been clean for years.[8]
Conscious motivation
[edit]Freud relied heavily upon the theories of unconscious motivation as explained above, but Allport (a researcher in 1967) looked heavily into the powers of conscious motivation and the effect it can have upon goals set for an individual. This is not to say that unconscious motivation should be ignored with this theory, but instead, it focuses on the thought that if we are aware of our surroundings and our goals, we can then actively and consciously take steps towards them.[98]
He also believed that there are three hierarchical tiers of personality traits that affect this motivation:[98]
- Cardinal traits: Rare, but strongly determine a set behavior and cannot be changed
- Central traits: Present around certain people, but can be hidden
- Secondary traits: Present in all people, but strongly reliant on context- can be altered as needed and would be the focus of a conscious motivation effort.
Mental Fatigue
[edit]Mental fatigue is being tired, exhausted, or not functioning effectively. Not wanting to proceed further with the current mental course of action is in contrast with physical fatigue, because in most cases no physical activity is done.[99] This is best seen in the workplace or schools. A perfect example of mental fatigue is seen in college students just before finals approach. One will notice that students start eating more than they usually do and care less about interactions with friends and classmates. Mental fatigue arises when an individual becomes involved in a complex task but does no physical activity and is still worn out, the reason for this is because the brain uses about 20 percent of the human body's metabolic heart rate. The brain consumes about 10.8 calories every hour. Meaning that a typical human adult brain runs on about twelve watts of electricity or a fifth of the power need to power a standard light bulb.[100] These numbers represent an individual's brain working on routine tasks, things that are not challenging. One study suggests that after engaging in a complex task, an individual tends to consume about two hundred more calories than if they had been resting or relaxing; however, this appeared to be due to stress, not higher caloric expenditure.[100]
The symptoms of mental fatigue can range from low motivation and loss of concentration to the more severe symptoms of headaches, dizziness, and impaired decision making and judgment. Mental fatigue can affect an individual's life by causing a lack of motivation, avoidance of friends and family members, and changes in one's mood. To treat mental fatigue, one must figure out what is causing the fatigue. Once the cause of the stress has been identified the individual must determine what they can do about it. Most of the time mental fatigue can be fixed by a simple life change like being more organized or learning to say no.[101] According to the study: Mental fatigue caused by prolonged cognitive load associated with sympathetic hyperactivity, "there is evidence that decreased parasympathetic activity and increased relative sympathetic activity are associated with mental fatigue induced by a prolonged cognitive load in healthy adults.[102]" this means that though no physical activity was done, the sympathetic nervous system was triggered. An individual who is experiencing mental fatigue will not feel relaxed but feel the physical symptoms of stress.
Learned Industriousness
[edit]Learned industriousness theory is the theory about an acquired ability to sustain the physical or mental effort. It can also be described as being persistent despite the building up subjective fatigue.[99] This is the ability to push through to the end for a greater or bigger reward. The more significant or more rewarding the incentive, the more the individual is willing to do to get to the end of a task.[103] This is one of the reasons that college students will go on to graduate school[citation needed]. The students may be worn out, but they are willing to go through more school for the reward of getting a higher paying job when they are out of school.
Reversal Theory
[edit]Reversal theory,[104] first introduced by Dr. Michael Apter and Dr. Ken Smith in the 1970s, is a structural, phenomenological explanation of psychological states and their dynamic interplay. The theory contributes to an understanding of emotions and personality in which endogenous (cognitive) and exogenous (environmental) implications are considered.
The theory proposes eight meta-motivational states arranged into four pairs that drive and respond to all human experience. When a state is interrupted or satiated, one "reverses" to the other state in the pair (domain). Unlike many theories related to personality, reversal theory proposes that human behavior is better understood by studying dynamic states than by the average of behavior over time trait theory.
Another distinction of reversal theory is its direct contrast with the Hebbian version of the Yerkes–Dodson law of arousal, which can be found in many forms of psychotherapy. Optimal arousal theory[105] proposes that the most comfortable or desirable arousal level is not too high or too low. Reversal theory proposes in its principle of bistability that any level of arousal or stimulation may be found either desirable or undesirable depending on the meta-motivational state one is in.[106]
Reversal theory has been academically supported and put to practical use in more than 30 fields (e.g., sports psychology, business, medical care, addiction, and stress) and in over 30 countries.
References
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ All goals are subject to the individual's skills and abilities.
Citations
[edit]- ^
- ^ Fiore, Douglas J. (2004). Introduction to Educational Administration: Standards, Theories, and Practice. Eye On Education. ISBN 978-1-930556-63-8.
- ^ Coyle, Daniel, The culture code: the secrets of highly successful groups, Damron, Will, ISBN 978-0-525-49248-1, OCLC 966608447
- ^ "Summary of ERG Theory - Clayton P. Alderfer. Abstract". valuebasedmanagement.net. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- ^ "McClelland - Theory of Needs". netmba.com. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
- ^ Pardee, R. L. (1990). The basic concept behind the hierarchy system is that it's like a food pyramid. Everybody starts at the bottom of the pyramid and is motivated to satisfy each level in ascending order to work our way to the top of the pyramid, and those levels (needs) are categorized into two main groups with five different sections which are explained below. Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland. A Literature Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job Satisfaction and Motivation.
- ^ "The Content Theories of Motivation". Sydney Institute - e-Learning Services. Archived from the original on 2018-03-15. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Deckers, Lambert (2018). Motivation Biological, Psychological, and Environmental (5th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 30–38, 71–75. ISBN 978-1-138-03632-1.
- ^ Chandler, H (1975). "Hedonism". American Philosophical Quarterly. 12 (3): 223–233. JSTOR 20009578.
- ^ Murray, S (2018). "Heterosexual Men's Sexual Desire: Supported by, or Deviating from, Traditional Masculinity Norms and Sexual Scripts?". Sex Roles. 78 (1): 130–141. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0766-7. S2CID 152019081.
- ^ Gonzaga, G.; Turner, R.; Keltner, D.; Campos, B.; Altemus, M.; Davidson, Richard J.; Scherer, Klaus R. (2006). "Romantic Love and Sexual Desire in Close Relationships". Emotion. 6 (2): 163–179. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.163. PMID 16768550.
- ^ Gonzaga, G. C.; Keltner, D. A.; Londahl, E. D.; Smith, M. (2001). "Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (2): 247–262. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.247. PMID 11519930.
- ^ Hosken, David J.; House, Clarissa M. (2011). "Sexual Selection". Current Biology. 21 (2): R62–R65. Bibcode:2011CBio...21..R62H. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.053. PMID 21256434. S2CID 18470445.
- ^ Deci, Edward L. (1971). "Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18 (1): 105–115. Bibcode:1971JPSP...18..105D. doi:10.1037/H0030644.
- ^ Harter, S (1978). "Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model". Human Development. 1: 661–669.
- ^ White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.
- ^ Baumeister, R.; Leary, M. R. (1995). "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (3): 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. PMID 7777651. S2CID 13559932.
- ^ deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
- ^ Deci, Edward L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. ISBN 978-1-4613-4448-3.
- ^ Deci, Edward L.; Ryan, Richard M. (October 2000). "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 11 (4): 227–268. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01. S2CID 15542489.
- ^ Deci, Edward L.; Vansteenkiste, Maarten (2004). "Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology" (PDF). Ricerche di Psicologia. 27: 17–34.
- ^ E.L. Deci; R. M. Ryan (2008). "Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health". Canadian Psychology. 49 (3): 182–185. doi:10.1037/a0012801.
- ^ "New Theory of Motivation Lists 16 Basic Desires That Guide Us". Research News. Ohio State. 2000-06-28. Archived from the original on 2016-12-16. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
- ^ a b Dobbin, Frank. "From Incentives to Teamwork: Rational and Natural Management Systems." Lecture. Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1 October 2012.
- ^ a b c d McGregor, D., 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise, New York, McGraw-Hill.
- ^ a b c Elton Mayo, 1984 [1949]. "Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company." pp. 279-292 in Organization Theory: Selected Readings. Second Edition. Edited by D.S. Pugh. New York: Penguin.
- ^ a b c d e Roethlisberger, F. J., et al. Management and the Worker; an Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939.
- ^ Walton, Cohen, Gregory, Geoffrey (2011). Sharing Motivation. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 82–83.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Motivation". panoramaconsulting.co.ke. Archived from the original on 3 January 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- ^ a b c d e f g Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L. (2000). "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions". Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25 (1): 54–67. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.318.808. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. PMID 10620381. S2CID 1098145.
- ^ a b Deci, Edward L.; Koestner, Richard; Ryan, Richard M. (1999). "A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation". Psychological Bulletin. 125 (6): 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627. ISSN 1939-1455. PMID 10589297. S2CID 15271950.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L. (2000). "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist. 55 (1): 68–78. Bibcode:2000AmPsy..55...68R. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.529.4370. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. PMID 11392867. S2CID 1887672.
- ^ Deci, Edward L.; Ryan, Richard M. (2013-06-29). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York. ISBN 978-1-4899-2271-7. OCLC 861705534.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ a b Ryan, Richard; Edward L. Deci (2000). "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions". Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25 (1): 54–67. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.318.808. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. PMID 10620381. S2CID 1098145.
- ^ Wigfield, A.; Guthrie, J. T.; Tonks, S.; Perencevich, K. C. (2004). "Children's motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences". Journal of Educational Research. 97 (6): 299–309. doi:10.3200/joer.97.6.299-310. S2CID 145301292.
- ^ Root, George N. III. "Examples of Intrinsic Workplace Motivation". Chron. Retrieved 27 November 2014.
- ^ Benjamin Lowry, Paul; Gaskin, James; Twyman, Nathan W.; Hammer, Bryan; Roberts, Tom L. (2013). "Taking 'fun and games' seriously: Proposing the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM)". Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 14 (11): 617–671. doi:10.17705/1jais.00347. S2CID 2810596. SSRN 2177442.
- ^ Parker, Christopher J.; Wang, Huchen (2016). "Examining hedonic and utilitarian motivations for m-commerce fashion retail app engagement". Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 20 (4): 487–506. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2016-0015.
- ^ StoryStudio. "One type of therapy is addressing autism, dementia, and so much more." San Francisco Gate, California Applied Behavior Analysis, 4 Aug. 2017, blog.sfgate.com/storystudio/2017/08/04/one-type-of-therapy-is-tackling-autism-dementia-and-so-much-more/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.
- ^ a b c Rueda, Richard; Moll, Luis C. (1994). "Chapter 7: A Sociocultural Perspective on Motivation". In O'Neill, Jr., Harold F.; Drillings, Michael (eds.). Motivation: Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8058-1286-2.
- ^ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum
- ^ "Motivating Students". 2010-06-11. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
- ^ Kreps, David M. (1997). "Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives". The American Economic Review. 87 (2): 359–364. ISSN 0002-8282. JSTOR 2950946.
- ^ Dewani, Vijay (2013-01-12). "Motivation". slideshare. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
- ^ Lepper, Mark R.; Greene, David; Nisbet, Richard (1973). "Undermining Children's Intrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Reward; A Test of 'Overjustification' Hypothesis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 28 (1): 129–37. doi:10.1037/h0035519. S2CID 40981945.
- ^ Marinak, Barbara A.; Gambrell, Linda B. (2008). "Intrinsic Motivation and Rewards: What Sustains Young Children's Engagement with Text?". Literacy Research and Instruction. 47 (1): 9–26. doi:10.1080/19388070701749546. S2CID 145209271.
- ^ Wilson, T. D.; Lassiter, G. D. (1982). "Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42 (5): 811–819. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.811.
- ^ a b Lambert., Deckers (2014). Motivation: biological, psychological, environmental. Pearson. ISBN 978-1-292-02799-9. OCLC 1040982893.
- ^ a b c "Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: All About Flow & Positive Psychology". 2016-12-16. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
- ^ "Can't Stop Worrying? Try Tetris To Ease Your Mind". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
- ^ "Flow and Happiness". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Cooper, John O (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13-129327-4.
- ^ a b c d e Donahoe, J.W. (2004). Learning and Complex Behavior. Richmond, MA, USA: Ledgetop Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9762371-0-5.
- ^ R., Killeen (1982). "Incentive theory". In Bernstein, Daniel J. (ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1981. Vol. 29. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 169–216. ISBN 978-0803211711. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
- ^ Rogoff, Barbara (2009). "Side by Side: Learning by Observing and Pitching In". Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology: 102–138.
- ^ a b c Walton, Gregory; Cohen, Geoffrey (2011). "Sharing Motivation". Social Motivation: 79–101.
- ^ Bolin, Inge (January 2006). Growing Up in a Culture of Respect.
- ^ Murray, Marjorie; Bowen, Sofia; Segura, Nicole; Verdugo, Marisol (2015). "Apprehending Volition in Early Socialization: Raising 'Little Persons' among Rural Mapuche Families". Ethos. 43 (4): 376–401. doi:10.1111/etho.12094. hdl:10533/238320. ISSN 0091-2131.
- ^ Gronhoj, Rhogersen, Alice, John (2017). "Why young people do things for the environment: the role of parenting for adolescents motivation to engage in pro-environmental behavior". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 54: 11–19. Bibcode:2017JEPsy..54...11G. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.005.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Bolin, Inge (2006). Growing Up in a Culture of Respect. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
- ^ a b Uysal, Muzaffer (1994). "Testing the push and pull factors". Annals of Tourism Research. 21 (4): 844–846. Bibcode:1994AnnTR..21..844U. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(94)90091-4.
- ^ "Push and Pull Motivation". Archived from the original on 2020-01-29. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
- ^ a b Chang, I.; Liu, C.; Chen, K. (2014). "The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking sites". Information Systems Journal. 24 (4): 323–346. doi:10.1111/isj.12030. S2CID 29759841.
- ^ Kelly, Theresa (February 6, 2012). Empathy: A Quantum Approach – The Psychical Influence of Emotion. Lulu.com. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-105-48288-5. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- ^ "Drive". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
- ^ a b c d e Schacter, D.L., Gilbert, D.L. and Wegner, D.M. (2009,2011) Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Worth.
- ^ "How Does Drive Reduction Theory Explain Human Motivation?". About.com Health. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
- ^ Kamlesh, M. L. (Jan 12, 2011). Psychology in Physical Education and Sport. Pinnacle Technology. ISBN 978-1-61820-248-2. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
- ^ Steel, Piers; König, Cornelius J. (2006). "Integrating Theories of Motivation" (PDF). Academy of Management Review. 31 (4). Academy of Management: 889–913. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527462. ISSN 0363-7425. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-10-27. Retrieved 2015-02-06.
- ^ a b Steel, Piers (2007). "The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 133 (1): 65–94. Bibcode:2007PsycB.133...65S. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.335.2796. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65. PMID 17201571. S2CID 1066615.
- ^ Atkinson, John; Norman Feather (1974). A Theory of Achievement Motivation (6 ed.). Krieger Pub Co. ISBN 978-0-88275-166-5.
- ^ Atkinson, John; George H. Litwin (1960). Achievement Motive and Text Anxiety Conceived as Motive to Approach Success and Motive to Avoid Failure. Bobbs-Merrill Company.
- ^ Atkinson, John; Joel O. Raynor (1978). Personality, Motivation and Achievement. Hemisphere Pub. Corp. ISBN 978-0-470-99336-1.
- ^ Xiang, P.; McBride, R.; Guan, J. (2004). "Children's motivation in elementary physical education: A longitudinal study". Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 75 (1): 71–80. doi:10.1080/02701367.2004.10609135. PMID 15532363. S2CID 37810704.
- ^ McClelland, David (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
- ^ Covington, M. V. (2000). "Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review". Annual Review of Psychology. 51 (1): 171–200. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171. PMID 10751969.
- ^ Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. pp. 121–122. ISBN 978-81-317-3370-7.
- ^ a b Entwistle, Noel (1988). "Motivational Factors in Students' Approaches to Learning". Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. Perspectives on Individual Differences. Springer, Boston, MA. pp. 21–51. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2118-5_2. ISBN 978-1-4899-2120-8.
- ^ a b c Fried, Yitzhak; Slowik, Linda Haynes (2004). "Enriching Goal-Setting Theory with Time: An Integrated Approach". The Academy of Management Review. 29 (3): 404–422. doi:10.2307/20159051. JSTOR 20159051.
- ^ a b "Theories of Motivation". analytictech.com.
- ^ Jaffe, Eric (2013-03-29). "Why Wait? The Science Behind Procrastination". APS Observer. 26 (4).
- ^ "Defense Mechanisms: Procrastination". hub.rockyview.ab.ca. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
- ^ "Lying and Procrastination". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
- ^ "Procrastination". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2019-01-30.
- ^ Atkinson, John; David Birch (1970). The Dynamics of Action. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-03624-1.
- ^ Kuhl, Julius; John W. Atkinson (1986). Motivation, Thought, and Action. New York: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-275-92096-8.
- ^ Atkinson, John; David Birch (1978). Introduction to Motivation. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
- ^ Reeve, J (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5 ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- ^ Kassin, Saul (2007). Social Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-618-86846-9.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) - ^ Weiner, Bernard (2000). "Interpersonal and intrapersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective". Educational Psychology Review. 12 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1023/A:1009017532121. S2CID 19527829.
- ^ a b Schacter, Daniel. "Psychology". Worth Publishers. 2011. p.340
- ^ Elliot, Andrew J; Covington, Martin V (2001). "Approach and Avoidance Motivation". Educational Psychology Review. 13 (2): 2. doi:10.1023/A:1009009018235.
- ^ Freud, Sigmund (2012). A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. Renaissance Classics. ISBN 978-1-4841-5680-3.
- ^ Deckers, Lambert (2018). Motivation: Biological, Psychological, and Environmental. Routledge. pp. 39–41. ISBN 978-1-138-03633-8.
- ^ "Priming". Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2016-06-17. Archived from the original on 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-10-13.
- ^ a b Elgendi, Mohamed; Kumar, Parmod; Barbic, Skye; Howard, Newton; Abbott, Derek; Cichocki, Andrzej (2018-05-30). "Subliminal Priming—State of the Art and Future Perspectives". Behavioral Sciences. 8 (6): 54. doi:10.3390/bs8060054. ISSN 2076-328X. PMC 6027235. PMID 29849006.
- ^ "Mere Exposure Effect". Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2016-06-17. Archived from the original on 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2018-10-13.
- ^ a b "Gordon W. Allport". psychology.fas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
- ^ a b Jabr, Ferris. "Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories?". Scientific American. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
- ^ Services, Department of Health & Human. "Fatigue". Retrieved 2018-12-04.
- ^ Mizuno, Kei; Tanaka, Masaaki; Yamaguti, Kouzi; Kajimoto, Osami; Kuratsune, Hirohiko; Watanabe, Yasuyoshi (2011-05-23). "Mental fatigue caused by prolonged cognitive load associated with sympathetic hyperactivity". Behavioral and Brain Functions. 7 (1): 17. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-7-17. ISSN 1744-9081. PMC 3113724. PMID 21605411.
- ^ "Learned Industriousness – Dr. Eisenberger". classweb.uh.edu. Retrieved 2018-12-04.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory (1st ed.). Amer Psychological Assn.
- ^ "Principle of Optimal Arousal". APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
- ^ Apter, Michael (1992). Dangerous Edge: The Psychology of Excitement (1 ed.). Free Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-02-900765-5.
Sources
[edit]- McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, 21.
- Helms, Marilyn M., ed. (2000). "Motivation and Motivation Theory". Encyclopedia of Management (4. ed.). Gale Group. ISBN 978-0-7876-3065-2. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-05-13.
- Naoum, Shamil (2001). People and Organizational Management in Construction. Thomas Telford Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7277-2874-6. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
- Sinding, Knud (2018). Organizational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-5268-1236-0. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
- Borkowski, Nancy (2011). Organizational Behavior in Health Care. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-6383-1. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
Content theory
View on GrokipediaNeed-Based Theories
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a foundational theory in content theories of motivation, proposing that human motivation arises from a progression through five levels of needs arranged in a pyramidal structure, where fulfillment of lower-level needs precedes motivation for higher ones. Introduced by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his seminal 1943 paper, the model posits that individuals are driven to satisfy basic survival needs before pursuing psychological and growth-oriented ones, ultimately aiming for self-actualization.[3] Maslow expanded and refined the theory in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality, emphasizing its implications for understanding human behavior beyond mere deficiency motivation.[4] The hierarchy consists of five distinct levels, often visualized as a pyramid with physiological needs at the base and self-actualization at the apex. Physiological needs represent the most fundamental requirements for human survival, including air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing, and reproduction; without these, higher motivations cannot emerge as the body prioritizes homeostasis.[3] Once satisfied, safety needs become prominent, encompassing personal security, employment stability, health, property ownership, and protection from physical and emotional harm, fostering a sense of order and predictability in one's environment.[3] The third level, love and belongingness needs, involves emotional relationships and social connections, such as friendships, intimacy, family, and a sense of community to combat feelings of isolation.[3] Esteem needs follow, divided into self-esteem (achievement, mastery, independence) and respect from others (status, recognition, appreciation), which contribute to confidence and a positive self-image.[3] At the top, self-actualization needs drive individuals to realize their full potential, pursue personal growth, peak experiences, and moral fulfillment through creativity, problem-solving, and autonomy.[3] Central to the theory is the concept of prepotency, which describes how needs emerge in a hierarchical order of dominance, with lower-level needs exerting stronger motivational force until sufficiently met before higher ones gain prominence.[3] Maslow argued that this prepotency ensures efficient resource allocation toward survival, but partial satisfaction of a need can motivate behavior while allowing progression, though unmet lower needs can regressively dominate motivation.[3] This dynamic structure underscores the theory's focus on holistic human development rather than isolated drives. In management, Maslow's hierarchy informs practices by encouraging leaders to address employees' physiological and safety needs—such as fair wages, safe working conditions, and job security—to unlock motivation for esteem and self-actualization, thereby enhancing productivity and job satisfaction.[5] For instance, organizations apply the model in human resource strategies to design benefits packages and team-building initiatives that progress from basic security to opportunities for professional growth and recognition.[6] In education, the theory guides educators in creating supportive learning environments where students' basic needs for safety and belonging are met to facilitate engagement and achievement at higher levels, such as through inclusive classrooms that promote social connections and self-esteem-building feedback.[7] Applications include school policies ensuring nutritional support and emotional safety to enable focus on intellectual and creative pursuits.[8] Despite its influence, Maslow's hierarchy faces criticisms for cultural bias, as the model's emphasis on individualistic self-actualization may not align with collectivist societies where social harmony and group needs take precedence over personal growth.[9] Additionally, empirical research has offered only partial support for the rigid hierarchical progression and prepotency, with studies showing that needs can overlap or vary in priority across contexts without strict sequential fulfillment.[10] A comprehensive review of factor-analytic and ranking studies concluded that while some evidence supports need categories, the overall theory lacks robust validation for its universal applicability.[10]Alderfer's ERG Theory
Alderfer's ERG theory, proposed by psychologist Clayton P. Alderfer, refines earlier models of human motivation by condensing needs into three interrelated categories: existence, relatedness, and growth. Published in 1969, the theory emerged from empirical research testing its validity against more rigid frameworks, emphasizing that individuals can pursue multiple needs simultaneously rather than in strict sequence.[11] This approach allows for greater flexibility in understanding motivation, particularly in dynamic environments like workplaces where needs may overlap or shift.[12] The existence category encompasses basic physiological and safety requirements, such as food, shelter, health, and job security, which ensure survival and material well-being. Relatedness involves social and interpersonal needs, including belonging, affection, and meaningful connections with others, like family, friends, or colleagues. Growth focuses on intrinsic development, such as personal achievement, self-esteem, and opportunities for creativity and autonomy. Unlike hierarchical models, ERG posits that these categories are not rigidly ordered but can be addressed concurrently, with satisfaction in one potentially influencing others.[11][13] Central to the theory are two key principles: satisfaction-progression and frustration-regression. Satisfaction-progression holds that fulfilling a lower-level need, such as existence, motivates progression toward higher ones like growth, though not exclusively. Frustration-regression occurs when a higher need remains unmet, prompting intensified focus on lower needs already satisfied, as a coping mechanism. These dynamics introduce nonlinearity, enabling regression without implying failure, which contrasts with stricter progression models.[11][14] Empirical evidence from Alderfer's original study supported ERG's flexibility, showing better alignment with observed behaviors than rigid hierarchies, particularly in how needs regress under frustration. Subsequent research, including a 2024 analysis of healthcare workers, confirmed ERG's utility in predicting job satisfaction and motivation, with the model's categories explaining variations in employee engagement more effectively than sequential alternatives. This validation highlights ERG's robustness in capturing motivational fluidity.[11][15] In organizational behavior, ERG theory guides managers in addressing employee frustration by recognizing regression patterns, such as when thwarted growth opportunities lead workers to prioritize relatedness or existence needs like better pay or team support. Applications include designing interventions to balance all categories, fostering productivity and morale; for instance, programs combining skill development (growth) with team-building (relatedness) have been linked to reduced burnout and higher retention. This holistic approach helps organizations mitigate dissatisfaction by allowing needs to be met in flexible combinations.[12][16]McClelland's Theory of Needs
McClelland's theory of needs, developed by psychologist David McClelland, posits that human motivation is primarily driven by three learned social motives: the need for achievement (nAch), the need for affiliation (nAff), and the need for power (nPow). These needs are not innate but acquired over time, shaping individuals' behaviors and preferences in various contexts, particularly professional ones. Unlike hierarchical models of motivation, McClelland emphasized that these needs operate independently, with one typically dominating an individual's motivational profile, influencing how they approach goals and interact with others.[17][18] The need for achievement (nAch) refers to a desire to accomplish challenging tasks through personal effort, seeking success in situations involving moderate risk and clear feedback, often leading individuals to prefer individual responsibility over team efforts. In contrast, the need for affiliation (nAff) involves a drive for close, friendly relationships and social approval, motivating people to prioritize harmony, avoid conflict, and foster belonging in group settings. The need for power (nPow) entails the urge to influence or control others, typically manifesting as a preference for leadership roles, though McClelland distinguished between personalized power (self-serving dominance) and institutionalized power (impact through social structures), with the latter being more constructive for organizational success. These motives were elaborated in McClelland's seminal 1961 work, The Achieving Society, which linked high societal nAch levels to economic growth and development.[17][19] To measure these needs, McClelland adapted the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a projective technique where participants interpret ambiguous images by creating stories, revealing implicit motives through recurring themes of achievement, affiliation, or power in their narratives. This method, refined in earlier research, allows for the assessment of unconscious drives rather than self-reported preferences, providing a more reliable gauge of motivational strength. The needs themselves are acquired through life experiences, such as childhood interactions, education, and role modeling, as well as broader cultural influences that reinforce certain motives; for instance, societies emphasizing individualism may cultivate stronger nAch, while collectivist cultures prioritize nAff.[20] In workplace settings, McClelland's theory has significant implications for motivation and leadership. Individuals with high nAch thrive in entrepreneurial or sales roles requiring personal initiative and measurable outcomes, as they are energized by opportunities for self-improvement and moderate challenges. High nAff suits collaborative environments like team coordination or customer service, where building rapport enhances performance, while high nPow individuals excel in managerial positions that demand decision-making and influence, particularly when power is exercised institutionally to benefit the group. Effective leaders can tailor job assignments and feedback to align with employees' dominant needs, boosting overall productivity; for example, assigning challenging projects to high nAch staff fosters innovation, whereas providing social incentives motivates those with strong nAff.[19][21] Research indicates that the strength of these needs varies by culture and gender, underscoring the theory's contextual sensitivity. Cross-cultural studies, including analyses in The Achieving Society, reveal higher average nAch in nations with Protestant work ethics or rapid industrialization, correlating with entrepreneurial activity and GDP growth, whereas more traditional societies show elevated nAff. Gender differences often emerge, with meta-analyses suggesting men typically score higher on nPow due to socialization toward assertiveness, while women exhibit stronger nAff linked to relational emphases, though these patterns can shift with changing societal norms and are not universal. Such variations highlight the need for culturally attuned applications in global organizations.[17][22][23]Dual-Factor and Managerial Theories
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, also known as the motivation-hygiene theory, posits that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction arise from two distinct sets of factors in the workplace. Motivators, or intrinsic factors, are elements of the job itself that lead to satisfaction and psychological growth, such as achievement, recognition for accomplishment, and increased responsibility. These factors foster a sense of fulfillment when present but do not necessarily cause dissatisfaction when absent. In contrast, hygiene factors, or extrinsic elements, are necessary to prevent dissatisfaction but do not actively motivate employees toward higher performance; examples include salary, company policies, and working conditions. The theory emphasizes that addressing hygiene factors only maintains a neutral state, while enhancing motivators is essential for true motivation and satisfaction.[24] The theory emerged from a study conducted by Frederick Herzberg and colleagues, who employed the critical incident technique to analyze employee experiences. In this method, participants were asked to recall specific events that led to exceptionally positive or negative feelings about their jobs, allowing researchers to identify patterns in reported factors. The original research involved in-depth interviews with 200 engineers and accountants from 11 companies in the Pittsburgh area, revealing that positive incidents were predominantly linked to motivators, while negative ones related to hygiene deficiencies. These findings were detailed in the seminal 1959 book The Motivation to Work, co-authored by Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman, which challenged prevailing views by arguing that satisfaction and dissatisfaction operate on separate continua rather than a single spectrum.[24][25] In practice, the theory has influenced job design strategies, particularly job enrichment, which aims to boost motivation by incorporating more motivators into roles—such as granting greater autonomy, opportunities for personal growth, and meaningful challenges—to elevate employee engagement and productivity. Organizations applying this approach focus on vertical loading of tasks, where employees take on responsibilities typically held by supervisors, thereby enhancing intrinsic rewards without solely relying on extrinsic adjustments like pay raises. This has been adopted in various management frameworks to improve retention and performance, underscoring the theory's enduring impact on human resource practices.[26][27] Despite its influence, the theory faces criticisms regarding its methodology and scope. The critical incident technique has been faulted for potential recall bias, as participants may disproportionately remember extreme events and attribute them to specific factors, potentially artifactually separating satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Additionally, the theory is seen as oversimplifying motivation by not fully accounting for individual differences, cultural contexts, or situational variables that can cause factors like salary to serve both hygiene and motivator roles. These limitations, highlighted in reviews of supporting evidence, suggest the need for more nuanced approaches in diverse work environments.[28][29]McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y
McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y represent two opposing sets of assumptions about employee motivation and human nature in the workplace, as outlined by Douglas McGregor in his seminal 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise. These theories challenge managers to reflect on their implicit beliefs about workers, arguing that such assumptions shape organizational practices and outcomes. McGregor developed them based on observations of traditional management approaches, positing that Theory X reflects conventional, pessimistic views, while Theory Y offers a more optimistic, enabling perspective.[30] Theory X assumes that the average employee inherently dislikes work and will avoid it whenever possible, viewing effort as something to be coerced rather than embraced. Under this view, management must rely on external controls such as direction, threats, and punishment to ensure compliance and achieve organizational goals. Key assumptions of Theory X include:- The average human has an inherent aversion to work and will shun it if they can.
- Due to this trait, people must be controlled, directed, and threatened with penalties to contribute adequately.
- Most individuals prefer to be led, evade responsibility, possess limited ambition, and prioritize security over growth.[31]
- Physical and mental effort in work is natural, and people exercise self-direction under conditions of commitment to objectives.
- Commitment to goals is a function of the rewards tied to their accomplishment, making external coercion unnecessary for many.
- The average person learns to seek and accept responsibility, demonstrating self-control in pursuing aligned objectives.
- The ability to use imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in addressing problems is broadly distributed among people.
- In modern industrial settings, the intellectual capacities of typical employees remain largely untapped by rigid structures.[31]
Desire and Human Nature Theories
Reiss's 16 Basic Desires Theory
Reiss's 16 Basic Desires Theory posits that human motivation arises from 16 fundamental, life-motive desires that are innate to all individuals but differ in intensity from person to person.[34] These desires, identified through factor analysis of survey data from over 6,000 people across four continents, encompass a broad range of psychological needs beyond mere survival, influencing behavior, values, and personality.[35] The theory challenges traditional views like Freud's pleasure principle by emphasizing goal-directed desires over emotional gratification.[36] The theory was fully articulated in Steven Reiss's 2000 book, Who Am I? The 16 Basic Desires That Motivate Our Behavior and Define Our Personality, which synthesizes empirical research showing these desires as universal yet individually variable in strength.[34] According to Reiss, satisfying these desires leads to happiness, while under- or over-satisfaction can result in dissatisfaction or maladaptive behaviors.[37] The 16 desires are:- Acceptance: The desire for approval and positive regard from others.
- Curiosity: The desire to learn and explore.
- Eating: The desire for food.
- Family: The desire to raise children and provide for loved ones.
- Honor: The desire to be true to one's values and principles.
- Idealism: The desire to improve the world and help others.
- Independence: The desire for self-reliance.
- Order: The desire for organization and cleanliness.
- Physical Activity: The desire for exercise and movement.
- Power: The desire to influence others and control one's environment.
- Romance: The desire for beauty and emotional connection in relationships.
- Saving: The desire to accumulate possessions and resources.
- Social Contact: The desire for companionship and social interaction.
- Status: The desire for recognition and prestige.
- Tranquility: The desire for emotional calm and peace.
- Vengeance: The desire to defend oneself and achieve justice.[34]
Sex, Hedonism, and Evolution
Evolutionary psychology posits that sexual selection, as articulated by Charles Darwin, plays a central role in motivating human behavior through the drive for reproduction. In his theory, individuals of one sex compete for access to mates of the other, leading to the evolution of traits and behaviors that enhance mating success, such as displays of strength or attractiveness.[41] This process motivates adaptive actions, from courtship rituals to resource acquisition, as reproductive fitness becomes a primary incentive overriding other survival needs in many contexts.[42] Darwin's framework, introduced in The Descent of Man (1871), underscores how sexual selection fosters motivations that prioritize gene propagation over mere survival.[43] The hedonism principle further explains these motivations by suggesting that humans are fundamentally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain, with these tendencies rooted in evolutionary adaptations for fitness. Psychological hedonism, a key concept in this view, holds that all behavior ultimately stems from desires to maximize pleasurable experiences, such as sexual gratification, and minimize aversive ones, like rejection or physical discomfort.[44] In an evolutionary context, pleasure serves as a proximate mechanism to reinforce behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction, while pain signals threats to be evaded.[45] This principle aligns with natural selection by linking hedonic responses to outcomes that boost reproductive success, making pleasure-seeking a core motivator across species.[46] Geoffrey Miller's influential 2000 work, The Mating Mind, extends these ideas by proposing that human intelligence and creativity evolved primarily through sexual selection rather than survival pressures alone. Miller argues that the human brain's complexity represents a form of costly signaling, where individuals display cognitive prowess—through art, humor, or language—to advertise genetic fitness to potential mates.[47] Costly signaling theory posits that such displays are honest indicators of quality because they are metabolically expensive and risky, thus motivating behaviors that signal underlying health and adaptability.[48] This perspective highlights how sexual drives propel the evolution of elaborate motivational systems beyond basic needs.[49] At the neurobiological level, dopamine plays a pivotal role in mediating these hedonic motivations within the brain's reward system. The mesolimbic dopamine pathway, conserved across mammals, releases dopamine in response to rewarding stimuli like sex, creating sensations of pleasure that reinforce approach behaviors essential for reproduction.[50] This system evolved to prioritize natural rewards that enhance fitness, with hedonic hotspots in the nucleus accumbens generating "liking" reactions to sexual and pleasurable experiences.[51] Dopamine's function thus bridges evolutionary pressures and immediate motivation, driving individuals to pursue activities that yield these adaptive rewards.[52] Criticisms of this evolutionary approach to sex, hedonism, and motivation center on its alleged overemphasis on biological universals, which can marginalize the role of cultural and social factors in shaping behavior. Scholars contend that evolutionary psychology often underplays how learned norms and environmental contexts modulate innate drives, leading to overly deterministic explanations. For instance, cultural variations in mating practices challenge claims of universal biological imperatives.[53] Nevertheless, these theories find practical applications in consumer behavior, where evolutionary motives like status signaling through luxury purchases mimic costly displays to attract mates or allies.[54] The desire for power, briefly, ties into these dynamics as an evolved signal of social dominance in reproductive contexts.[55]Natural Theories of Motivation
Natural theories of motivation emphasize innate human drives shaped by environmental factors in work settings, contrasting earlier mechanistic views with more holistic approaches that recognize social and personal influences on behavior. Examples include Douglas McGregor's Theory Y, which assumes workers are naturally motivated by challenging work and opportunities for growth. Frederick Taylor's scientific management theory, introduced in the early 20th century, posited that workers are primarily motivated by economic incentives, advocating for time-motion studies and piece-rate wage systems to optimize efficiency and productivity. This approach treated motivation as a rational response to financial rewards, assuming individuals would exert maximum effort when pay directly correlated with output. However, it overlooked psychological and social elements, leading to criticisms for dehumanizing labor. The human relations movement, emerging from the Hawthorne studies conducted by Elton Mayo and colleagues in the 1920s and 1930s, challenged Taylor's model by demonstrating that group dynamics and social interactions significantly influence motivation beyond mere financial incentives. These field experiments at the Western Electric Hawthorne plant revealed that productivity improved due to workers' sense of belonging and attention from management, rather than changes in physical conditions or wages alone.[56] This shift highlighted how informal group norms and interpersonal relationships foster self-management through teamwork, enhancing intrinsic motivation by promoting collaboration, mutual support, and a shared sense of purpose in natural work environments. Seminal research by J. Richard Hackman further supported this, showing that teams with clear goals and supportive dynamics exhibit higher engagement and performance as members derive satisfaction from collective achievements.[57] Wage incentives remain a key extrinsic component in natural theories, with empirical field studies illustrating their effectiveness in real-world settings. Edward Lazear's 2000 analysis of Safelite Glass Corporation's transition from hourly pay to piece rates documented a 44% increase in worker productivity, attributing the gain partly to stronger performance incentives and self-selection of more motivated employees.[58] Similarly, a 2015 laboratory experiment by Corgnet, Gómez-Miñambres, and Hernán-González found that monetary bonuses, when combined with goal-setting, boosted output.[59] These findings underscore how performance-tied wages align individual efforts with organizational goals, though effects vary by task complexity and worker traits. Autonomy in task execution represents another innate motivator in natural theories, where self-directed work can enhance motivation by allowing personal initiative.Intrinsic Motivation Theories
Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a macro-theory of human motivation, personality development, and well-being developed by psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, first comprehensively outlined in their 1985 book Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior.[60] The theory posits that humans have an innate tendency toward growth and integration, facilitated by the satisfaction of three universal basic psychological needs: autonomy, which involves experiencing behavior as self-endorsed and volitional; competence, referring to feelings of mastery and effectiveness in one's activities; and relatedness, encompassing secure and satisfying connections with others.[61] These needs are essential for fostering intrinsic motivation—the engagement in activities for their inherent satisfaction—and supporting optimal functioning across life domains.[62] SDT encompasses several mini-theories that elaborate on its core principles. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), a foundational subtheory, explains how social and environmental factors influence intrinsic motivation by affecting the satisfaction of autonomy and competence.[61] Specifically, CET highlights that external rewards, such as tangible incentives, can undermine intrinsic motivation if perceived as controlling, as they diminish feelings of autonomy, whereas informational feedback that supports competence can enhance it.[60] Another key mini-theory, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), addresses the internalization of extrinsic motivations—behaviors pursued for external outcomes—into more autonomous forms, progressing through stages from amotivation to integrated regulation, where actions align with personal values.[61] This process enables individuals to transform externally driven behaviors into self-determined ones, promoting sustained engagement.[63] Empirical research supports SDT's predictions, with meta-analyses demonstrating that basic psychological need satisfaction robustly predicts enhanced well-being, including higher life satisfaction, positive affect, and reduced negative affect, across diverse populations and cultures.[64] For instance, need satisfaction explains significant variance in eudaimonic well-being, with effect sizes indicating stronger associations in adulthood than childhood.[65] SDT has been widely applied in practical contexts to promote motivation and positive outcomes. In education, interventions supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness improve students' intrinsic motivation and academic performance, as shown in meta-analyses of SDT-based programs.[66] In health domains, SDT-informed strategies enhance adherence to behaviors like physical activity and chronic disease management, yielding moderate to large effects on motivation and psychological health.[67] Similarly, in workplace settings, satisfying these needs correlates with higher job performance, reduced burnout, and greater organizational commitment, according to meta-analytic evidence.[68]Flow Theory
Flow theory, developed by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, posits that flow is a state of complete immersion and optimal experience achieved when individuals engage in challenging activities that match their skills, leading to heightened motivation and enjoyment.[69] Introduced in his 1975 book Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play, the concept emerged from studies of artists, athletes, and workers who reported losing track of time and self during absorbed tasks. Csikszentmihalyi described flow as an autotelic experience—intrinsically rewarding for its own sake—contrasting with external rewards, and emphasized its role in countering boredom and anxiety in daily life.[70] Key conditions for entering flow include clear goals that provide direction, immediate feedback on performance to sustain engagement, and a balance between the perceived challenge of the task and the individual's skill level to avoid anxiety or apathy.[71] When skills exceed challenges, boredom ensues; when challenges surpass skills, anxiety arises; but optimal alignment fosters flow.[72] Flow experiences are characterized by several dimensions, such as intense concentration with action and awareness merging seamlessly, a loss of self-consciousness where individuals forget bodily needs and external concerns, a sense of effortless control over the activity, distorted perception of time, and intrinsic reward that motivates continued participation.[73] Individuals with an autotelic personality are particularly adept at seeking and achieving flow states, viewing challenges as opportunities for growth rather than threats, and deriving satisfaction from the process itself regardless of outcomes.[71] Neuroscientific research links flow to transient hypofrontality, a temporary reduction in prefrontal cortex activity that diminishes self-referential thinking and executive control, allowing for more fluid, automatic performance.[73] This neural state facilitates the absorption and creativity observed in flow.[74] Flow theory has broad applications in positive psychology, where it underpins efforts to enhance well-being through structured activities that promote optimal experiences.[75] In sports, athletes use flow principles to achieve peak performance, such as rock climbers maintaining focus during high-stakes ascents.[76] For creativity enhancement, artists and innovators apply flow conditions to sustain deep engagement, as seen in Csikszentmihalyi's original observations of painters who persisted until completing a vision.[69] Autonomy and competence can facilitate flow by aligning personal agency with skill-matched challenges.[72]Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activity for its inherent satisfaction, enjoyment, or the interest it provides, rather than for external rewards.[77] In contrast, extrinsic motivation involves performing an activity to attain separable outcomes, such as rewards, grades, or avoidance of punishments, where the activity itself is not the primary source of fulfillment.[77] These two forms of motivation often interact in complex ways, influencing persistence, creativity, and overall performance; for instance, intrinsic motivation tends to foster deeper engagement and long-term commitment, while extrinsic motivation can drive initial action but may wane without sustained incentives.[77] A key phenomenon illustrating their interaction is the overjustification effect, where extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation by leading individuals to attribute their behavior to external factors rather than internal interest.[78] In a seminal field experiment, Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) tested this with nursery school children aged 3-5 who were initially observed playing freely with markers, showing high intrinsic interest.[78] Children were assigned to one of three conditions: an expected reward group promised a certificate for drawing (task-contingent reward), an unexpected reward group given a certificate after drawing without prior mention (tangential reward), or a no-reward control group.[78] Follow-up observations revealed that the expected reward group spent significantly less time drawing freely compared to the other groups, demonstrating how anticipated external incentives diminished subsequent intrinsic motivation.[78] Tangential rewards, however, showed less undermining, suggesting that the perceived contingency of rewards plays a critical role.[78] Integration models propose that extrinsic motivation can support or enhance intrinsic motivation under optimal conditions, such as when rewards provide informative feedback rather than controlling pressures.[77] For example, extrinsic incentives may initially boost engagement, allowing individuals to experience the activity's inherent value, which then sustains motivation post-reward.[77] This additive or facilitative dynamic is evident in research showing that non-controlling rewards can reinforce autonomy and competence, bridging the two motivation types without displacement.[77] In practical applications, understanding this interplay informs gamification strategies, where designers blend extrinsic elements like badges and leaderboards with intrinsic appeals to maintain user engagement without eroding interest.[79] Studies on workplace and educational gamification indicate that such balanced approaches increase behavioral intention and need satisfaction, with intrinsic motivation mediating long-term participation.[79] Similarly, in policy design, policymakers leverage these concepts to avoid motivational crowding-out; for instance, environmental regulations using fines (extrinsic) are paired with educational campaigns highlighting personal benefits (intrinsic) to encourage sustained compliance without diminishing voluntary action.[80] Flow represents a peak form of intrinsic motivation, where optimal challenge and skill alignment yield immersive experiences.[77]Drive and Reduction Theories
Drive-Reduction Theory
Drive-reduction theory, proposed by Clark Hull in 1943, posits that motivation arises from internal physiological needs that create states of tension or "drives," prompting behaviors aimed at reducing these drives to restore biological homeostasis.[81] According to Hull, a drive (D) represents the arousal induced by unmet needs, and the reduction of this drive through behavior serves as reinforcement, strengthening the association between stimuli and responses.[82] This process underlies learning and motivation, as organisms are compelled to act in ways that alleviate discomfort and return to equilibrium.[83] Hull distinguished between primary drives, which are innate and directly tied to biological necessities such as hunger and thirst, and secondary drives, which are acquired through learning and association with primary drives, such as a fear of failure linked to survival threats.[81] In his seminal work, Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory, Hull formalized this framework mathematically, proposing that performance or excitatory potential (sEr) is determined by the product of drive strength (D) and habit strength (sHr), expressed briefly as Performance = Drive × Habit. This equation illustrates how motivation amplifies habitual responses, with drive acting as the energizing force and habit providing the directional guidance for behavior.[84] Despite its influence, drive-reduction theory has faced significant criticisms for failing to account for motivations that do not involve restoring homeostasis, such as curiosity-driven exploration or thrill-seeking activities that temporarily increase arousal rather than reduce it.[82] Critics argue that the theory's emphasis on internal tension overlooks external and cognitive factors in motivation.[81] Nonetheless, it laid foundational groundwork for subsequent models, including incentive theories, which integrate external rewards as "pull" factors to complement the internal "push" of drives.[85]Drives
Drives represent fundamental internal states that arise from physiological imbalances or unmet needs, compelling individuals to engage in behaviors aimed at restoring equilibrium and ensuring survival. These drives are innate mechanisms that activate motivational systems, directing actions toward essential outcomes such as nourishment, reproduction, and social connection. Unlike learned incentives, drives originate from biological imperatives but can extend through learning to secondary drives in psychological domains, influencing a wide range of human behaviors.[86] Drives are broadly categorized into primary biological types, such as hunger, thirst, and sex, which are directly tied to bodily homeostasis; for instance, hunger motivates foraging and consumption to counteract energy deficits, while the sex drive promotes reproductive behaviors essential for species propagation. Secondary drives, acquired through conditioning, link to primary ones, such as drives for safety or avoidance of pain. These highlight how drives operate to guide adaptive responses.[19] Homeostatic regulation of drives is primarily orchestrated by the hypothalamus, which integrates sensory inputs and hormonal signals to monitor and adjust bodily states. For example, the hypothalamus responds to low blood glucose by releasing hormones like ghrelin to amplify hunger signals, while satiety is signaled by leptin from adipose tissue, suppressing further intake. This neural-hormonal interplay ensures that deviations from optimal physiological conditions trigger drive activation, maintaining energy balance and other vital equilibria. Hormonal disruptions, such as elevated cortisol during stress, can intensify drives, underscoring the system's sensitivity to internal and external perturbations.[87][88] From an evolutionary perspective, drives have persisted because they conferred survival and reproductive advantages in ancestral environments, where rapid responses to threats or resource scarcity were critical for lineage continuation. Natural selection favored individuals whose drives prompted efficient resource acquisition, threat avoidance, and alliance formation, embedding these mechanisms deeply in human neurobiology. Contemporary humans retain these drives, adapted to modern contexts, ensuring their ongoing role in behavioral adaptation.[89] Drives are measured through deprivation studies, which induce controlled deficits to observe behavioral and physiological responses; the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, for instance, demonstrated how caloric deprivation heightened food preoccupation and irritability, quantifying drive intensity via self-reports and performance tasks. Physiological indicators, including hormone assays (e.g., ghrelin levels for hunger) and neuroimaging of hypothalamic activity, provide objective metrics of drive arousal, revealing correlations between neural activation and motivational urgency. These methods allow researchers to assess drive strength without relying solely on subjective accounts.[90][91] Addiction can be understood as a dysregulation of these drives, where substances or behaviors hijack homeostatic reward pathways, leading to compulsive pursuit despite negative consequences. In this state, the brain's allostatic mechanisms fail to restore balance, amplifying negative emotional states that reinforce the drive for relief through repeated engagement. This dysregulation transforms adaptive drives into maladaptive cycles, as seen in the persistent motivation for drug use amid withdrawal-induced aversion.[92][93] The reduction process in motivation involves satisfying these drives to alleviate the associated tension, thereby restoring equilibrium and diminishing the urge for further action.[86]Push and Pull Motivation
Push and pull motivation represent complementary forces in theories of motivation, where push factors originate internally to propel individuals away from aversive conditions, while pull factors arise externally to attract them toward desirable outcomes. Push factors encompass dissatisfactions, unmet needs, and fears that create internal pressure for change, such as the urge to escape poverty or alleviate job-related stress.[94] These internal drives, akin to basic motivational drives, force action to reduce discomfort or avoid negative consequences.[95] In contrast, pull factors involve aspirations, rewards, and opportunities that draw behavior toward positive goals, exemplified by the pursuit of career advancement through higher education or promotions offering financial security and personal growth.[94] The push-pull framework gained prominence in travel and tourism models through Dann's (1977) analysis, which differentiated socio-psychological push factors—like the need for escape from routine or anomie—from pull factors tied to specific destinations, such as cultural attractions or amenities that promise novelty and relaxation.[95] This integration highlights how internal motivations initiate the desire to travel, while external features of destinations sustain and direct the behavior. Similarly, in career choice theories, push-pull dynamics underpin decisions to switch professions or relocate for work, where push elements like workplace dissatisfaction or limited growth opportunities compel departure, and pull elements such as innovative job markets or higher salaries in new regions encourage relocation.[94] Empirical studies underscore the importance of balancing push and pull factors for sustained motivation and long-term behavioral commitment. For example, research on sustainable entrepreneurship demonstrates that entrepreneurs who address push factors like economic instability alongside pull factors such as market opportunities for eco-friendly products achieve greater customer loyalty and business persistence over time.[96] In tourism contexts, surveys of domestic travelers reveal that integrated push-pull influences enhance satisfaction and repeat visitation, with unbalanced motivations leading to short-term engagement only.[97] These findings suggest that optimal motivation requires both forces to align, preventing burnout from excessive push or inertia from weak pull. In marketing, the push-pull model guides strategies to influence consumer behavior by leveraging push tactics, such as targeted promotions addressing pain points like financial constraints, to create urgency, while pull tactics, including aspirational branding that highlights lifestyle rewards, foster enduring brand affinity.[98] Applications in change management similarly emphasize this duality, where leaders use push approaches—like clear directives and accountability measures—to overcome resistance stemming from fears of disruption, complemented by pull techniques, such as vision-sharing and opportunity framing, to build enthusiasm and voluntary participation in organizational transitions.[99] This balanced application ensures not only initiation but also the maintenance of motivational momentum across diverse contexts.Cognitive Process Theories
Cognitive process theories of motivation focus on the cognitive mechanisms underlying motivational processes, such as decision-making, goal pursuit, and tension reduction. While sometimes overlapping with content approaches, these theories primarily explain how individuals process and respond to motivational factors.[100]Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive dissonance theory, developed by psychologist Leon Festinger, explains motivation as arising from the psychological tension created when individuals hold conflicting cognitions, such as beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors that are inconsistent with one another.[101] This discomfort, termed dissonance, motivates people to reduce it through various strategies, including altering one of the conflicting cognitions, adding new consonant cognitions, or minimizing the importance of the dissonant elements.[101] The magnitude of dissonance is determined by the importance of the involved elements and the ratio of dissonant cognitions to consonant ones; higher ratios and greater personal relevance amplify the tension.[101] Festinger formalized the theory in his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, where he argued that this drive for consonance functions similarly to other motivational forces, like hunger, pushing individuals toward cognitive consistency.[101] Empirical support came from experiments testing predictions derived from the theory, particularly the forced compliance paradigm. In a seminal 1959 study by Festinger and James Carlsmith, participants performed a boring task for an hour and were then paid either $1 or $20 to falsely describe it as enjoyable to a confederate; those receiving the smaller reward reported greater liking for the task, as they experienced more dissonance from lying without sufficient external justification and thus adjusted their attitude to resolve it.[102] This counterintuitive finding—that lower rewards lead to more attitude change—highlighted how insufficient justification intensifies dissonance, motivating internal shifts.[102] The theory has broad applications in understanding motivation across domains. In persuasion, inducing mild dissonance—such as confronting individuals with inconsistencies in their views—can motivate attitude change, as seen in campaigns that highlight discrepancies between self-image and current behaviors to encourage compliance.[103] For decision-making, post-choice dissonance arises after selecting among alternatives, prompting rationalization of the chosen option and derogation of rejected ones to affirm the decision's validity.[101] In smoking cessation, dissonance between knowledge of health risks and continued smoking motivates resolution through quitting, denial of risks, or downplaying the habit's severity, with studies showing smokers often employ dissonance-reducing beliefs to maintain the behavior.[104] An influential extension and alternative to dissonance theory is self-perception theory, proposed by Daryl Bem in 1967, which suggests that when internal cues are weak or ambiguous, individuals infer their own attitudes by observing their behavior, rather than experiencing aversive tension.[105] This account challenges dissonance by reinterpreting phenomena like forced compliance as self-inference processes, particularly in low-involvement situations.[105]Goal-Setting Theory
Goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin A. Locke in 1968, posits that conscious goals regulate human action by directing attention, mobilizing effort, enhancing persistence, and motivating strategy development, thereby improving task performance.[106] The theory emerged from empirical research demonstrating that individuals perform better when they have specific and challenging goals rather than vague directives like "do your best."[107] Locke's foundational work integrated prior studies on motivation, emphasizing that goals function as motivational incentives by creating a discrepancy between current performance and desired outcomes, which energizes behavior until the gap is closed.[106] Central to the theory are five key elements that determine goal effectiveness: clarity (specificity), challenge, commitment, feedback, and task complexity. Specific and clear goals reduce ambiguity and direct attention to relevant activities, leading to higher performance compared to general goals.[107] Challenging goals, set at a high but attainable level, increase effort and persistence, as they demand greater mobilization of resources without overwhelming the individual.[107] Commitment to goals is fostered through personal importance, public declaration, and support from others, ensuring sustained engagement.[107] Feedback provides information on progress, allowing adjustments and reinforcing motivation, while task complexity moderates effects—for simpler tasks, performance goals suffice, but complex tasks benefit from learning goals to build strategies.[107] Extensive meta-analyses validate the theory's robustness, with Locke and Latham's 2002 review of 35 years of research across laboratory and field settings showing that specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance in over 90% of studies, involving more than 40,000 participants from diverse countries and tasks.[108] These findings highlight a positive linear relationship between goal difficulty and performance, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large (d = 0.52–0.82).[107] The theory integrates into the high-performance cycle (HPC) model, which Locke and Latham outlined in 1990, linking goals to a dynamic process: high, specific goals drive elevated performance, yielding rewards like recognition or promotions, which boost satisfaction and self-efficacy, thereby supporting even higher future goals.[109] This cycle underscores that satisfaction follows from successful performance rather than preceding it, creating a self-reinforcing loop for sustained motivation.[109] In organizational contexts, goal-setting theory underpins management by objectives (MBO), a systematic approach where managers and employees collaboratively set specific, measurable goals aligned with broader aims to enhance productivity and accountability.[108] Applications include performance appraisals in industries like engineering and telecommunications, where goal feedback has improved output by 10–25% in field studies, demonstrating the theory's practical utility in driving organizational performance.[107]Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory, developed by Victor Vroom, posits that an individual's motivation to exert effort is determined by their perceptions of the relationship between effort, performance, and rewards.[110] The theory emphasizes three core components: expectancy, which refers to the belief that increased effort will result in better performance; instrumentality, the perception that successful performance will lead to specific outcomes or rewards; and valence, the emotional value or attractiveness an individual places on those outcomes.[111] These elements interact multiplicatively, meaning that low levels in any one can diminish overall motivation.[112] The motivational force in expectancy theory is formally expressed as: Vroom introduced this model in his 1964 book Work and Motivation, drawing on earlier decision-making theories to explain how individuals choose behaviors that maximize expected utility in organizational settings.[110] Each component is typically measured on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates no belief or value and 1 indicates complete certainty or high desirability, highlighting the probabilistic nature of motivation.[111] In 1968, Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler extended Vroom's model into the Porter-Lawler framework, incorporating additional factors such as the role of satisfaction and equity in the motivation process.[113] This extension posits that performance leads to both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, but actual satisfaction depends on whether those rewards are perceived as equitable compared to others' inputs and outcomes, creating a feedback loop that influences future expectancy.[111] The model underscores how perceived fairness in reward distribution can reinforce or undermine the instrumentality link.[114] Expectancy theory has been widely applied in organizational contexts, particularly in designing performance appraisal systems and reward structures to enhance employee motivation.[111] In performance appraisals, managers use the theory to set clear, achievable goals that boost expectancy while linking evaluations directly to valued rewards, such as bonuses or promotions, to strengthen instrumentality.[115] For reward systems, organizations implement variable pay structures where high performers receive tangible outcomes tailored to individual valences, like flexible work arrangements, thereby aligning effort with desired results.[111] Despite its influence, expectancy theory faces criticisms related to its complexity and challenges in measurement.[111] The multiplicative formula assumes rational, calculative decision-making, which may oversimplify the emotional and subconscious aspects of motivation, making practical implementation intricate in dynamic work environments.[116] Additionally, quantifying expectancy, instrumentality, and valence through surveys or assessments is often subjective and prone to bias, leading to inconsistent empirical validation across studies.[111]Temporal Motivation Theory
Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT), developed by Piers Steel in 2007, integrates elements of expectancy theory with temporal discounting to model how motivation fluctuates over time, particularly in relation to deadlines.[117] This framework extends traditional expectancy models by incorporating the diminishing impact of time on perceived rewards, emphasizing that motivation toward a task increases as the deadline approaches due to reduced delay.[117] The core of TMT is expressed through the formula: [117] Here, expectancy refers to the anticipated probability of successful task completion, valence captures the perceived value or reward of the outcome, impulsiveness represents an individual's sensitivity to immediate gratification, and delay denotes the time until the reward or consequence materializes. This equation posits that motivation is highest when expectancy and valence are elevated, while high impulsiveness and prolonged delay erode it, often leading to deferred action until urgency heightens.[117] A key distinction in TMT lies in its adoption of hyperbolic discounting over exponential discounting to explain temporal preferences. Hyperbolic discounting models a steeper devaluation of future rewards compared to exponential models, resulting in preference reversals where individuals favor short-term benefits early on but switch to long-term goals as deadlines near—for instance, prioritizing leisure initially but shifting to work completion under time pressure. This dynamic captures real-world deadline-driven behavior, such as intensified effort in the final days before a project due date, as the shrinking delay amplifies the effective utility of task completion.[117] TMT's validity is supported by meta-analytic evidence from over 690 correlations across studies, demonstrating robust links between its components and self-regulatory processes; for example, higher expectancy correlates negatively with procrastination (r = -0.38), while greater impulsiveness correlates positively (r = 0.41).[117] These findings underscore TMT's role in elucidating self-regulation by quantifying how temporal factors interact with motivational drivers to influence sustained goal pursuit.[117]Behavioral Theories
Behaviorist Theories
Behaviorist theories of motivation view motivation as emerging from observable, learned associations between environmental stimuli and behavioral responses, deliberately excluding unobservable internal mental states or drives in favor of empirical analysis of external contingencies.[118] This approach posits that behaviors are motivated primarily through consequences that strengthen or weaken stimulus-response (S-R) bonds, transforming neutral stimuli into motivators via repeated pairing with rewarding outcomes.[119] Pioneered in the early 20th century, behaviorism shifted psychological inquiry toward measurable actions, asserting that all motivation, including complex human behaviors, could be explained and shaped through environmental manipulations without reference to subjective experiences.[120] John B. Watson, a foundational figure in behaviorism, formalized these ideas in his 1925 book Behaviorism, where he advocated for psychology as the science of S-R connections, dismissing introspection as unscientific and emphasizing that motivation stems from conditioned reflexes to external cues.[121] Watson's framework portrayed motivation as a mechanical process of habit formation, where repeated reinforcements forge durable S-R bonds that drive behavior in response to stimuli, as demonstrated in his experiments on emotional conditioning.[119] B.F. Skinner further advanced this perspective by focusing on how consequences, rather than antecedents alone, motivate behavior through selective strengthening of responses, building on Watson's S-R model to create a more dynamic theory of voluntary action.[122] Central to Skinner's contributions are reinforcement schedules, which dictate the timing and predictability of rewards to sustain motivation; these include fixed-ratio (reinforcement after a set number of responses), variable-ratio (after an unpredictable number), fixed-interval (after a fixed time), and variable-interval (after varying times), each producing distinct patterns of behavioral persistence and resistance to extinction.[123] For instance, variable-ratio schedules, like those in gambling, foster high rates of motivated responding due to their unpredictability.[122] These schedules underscore behaviorism's core tenet that motivation is not innate but engineered through environmental feedback loops. In practice, behaviorist theories have informed applications such as token economies, systems where individuals earn symbolic tokens for target behaviors, which can later be exchanged for tangible rewards, effectively using secondary reinforcers to motivate compliance in settings like classrooms and psychiatric wards.[124] Similarly, habit formation relies on consistent reinforcement of S-R associations to automate motivated behaviors, as seen in self-help techniques that pair cues with rewards to build routines like exercise adherence.[125] These methods highlight behaviorism's emphasis on practical manipulation of contingencies to enhance motivation. Despite their influence, behaviorist theories face significant criticisms for overlooking cognitive factors, such as thoughts and expectations, that mediate between stimuli and responses, rendering the approach overly simplistic for explaining nuanced human motivation.[118] This limitation prompted a shift toward cognitive-behavioral models in the mid-20th century, which integrate mental processes with observable behaviors to provide a more comprehensive account of motivation.[126]Classical and Operant Conditioning
Classical conditioning, a foundational process in behavioral motivation, involves learning through the association of stimuli, where a neutral stimulus becomes capable of eliciting a response originally triggered by another stimulus. In Ivan Pavlov's experiments, dogs naturally salivated (unconditioned response) to food (unconditioned stimulus), but after repeated pairings with a bell (neutral stimulus), the bell alone elicited salivation (conditioned response).[127] This associative learning, detailed in Pavlov's 1927 work Conditioned Reflexes, demonstrates how involuntary behaviors can be motivated by environmental cues without conscious awareness.[127] Key processes in classical conditioning include extinction, where the conditioned response diminishes if the conditioned stimulus is presented repeatedly without the unconditioned stimulus, as Pavlov observed when the bell rang without food.[128] Generalization occurs when similar stimuli to the conditioned stimulus also elicit the response; for instance, dogs salivated to tones resembling the original bell sound.[128] These mechanisms highlight how motivations can spread or fade based on stimulus pairings, forming the basis for associative learning in motivation. Operant conditioning, in contrast, focuses on how consequences shape voluntary behaviors, emphasizing the role of reinforcement and punishment in motivating actions. B.F. Skinner introduced this in his 1938 book The Behavior of Organisms, using devices like the Skinner box to study how rats learned to press levers for food rewards.[129] Positive reinforcement increases behavior by adding a desirable stimulus, such as food after a lever press, while negative reinforcement increases it by removing an aversive one, like escaping electric shock. Punishment decreases behavior: positive punishment adds an unpleasant stimulus (e.g., a mild shock), and negative punishment removes a pleasant one (e.g., withholding food). Shaping, a technique Skinner developed, motivates complex behaviors by reinforcing successive approximations toward the target, such as gradually rewarding closer approaches to the lever before full presses.[129] Extinction in operant conditioning happens when reinforcement ceases, leading to a decline in the behavior, though it may temporarily recover if the context changes. Generalization extends the behavior to similar situations or responses, allowing motivated actions to adapt across environments. Classical and operant conditioning exemplify behaviorist principles by linking environmental stimuli and consequences to motivational learning. Applications of classical conditioning include phobia treatment through systematic desensitization, where patients gradually associate feared stimuli (e.g., spiders) with relaxation to extinguish anxiety responses, building on Pavlov's associative framework.[128] In operant conditioning, animal training relies on reinforcement schedules; for example, Skinner's work with pigeons demonstrated shaping behaviors like key-pecking for rewards, widely used in modern training programs to motivate desired actions.[129] These methods underscore the practical role of conditioning in behavioral motivation.Motivating Operations
Motivating operations (MOs) are environmental variables that momentarily alter the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of specific stimuli and simultaneously evoke or abate behaviors relevant to those stimuli, thereby extending behaviorist principles to contextual influences on motivation.[130] Introduced by Jack Michael in 1982, the concept distinguishes MOs from discriminative stimuli by emphasizing their role in changing the value of consequences rather than merely signaling their availability. MOs are categorized into establishing operations (EOs), which increase the reinforcing value of a stimulus and evoke related behaviors, and abolishing operations (AOs), which decrease that value and abate such behaviors.[130] For instance, food deprivation acts as an EO by enhancing the reinforcing effectiveness of food and increasing food-seeking behaviors, while satiation functions as an AO by reducing food's value and suppressing those behaviors.[130] Michael further differentiated between discriminative MOs, which signal the availability of reinforcement similar to S^D stimuli, and reflexive MOs, which establish or abolish reinforcer effectiveness without signaling contingencies, such as pain that heightens escape responses. In applied behavior analysis (ABA), particularly for autism therapy, MOs are manipulated to enhance skill acquisition and reduce challenging behaviors by aligning environmental conditions with therapeutic goals.[131] Therapists may introduce EOs, like controlled access to preferred items, to increase motivation for communication training in children with autism, thereby promoting generalization of mand responses across settings.[132] Within functional behavioral assessments, MOs inform motivation by identifying contextual factors that maintain problem behaviors, allowing interventions to target underlying reinforcer values rather than just antecedents or consequences.[130] Empirical research demonstrates that deprivation as an EO reliably enhances response rates for operant behaviors. In studies with pigeons, varying levels of food deprivation increased response rates and decreased latencies for food-reinforced key pecking, illustrating MOs' direct impact on behavioral momentum.[133] Similarly, in human participants, sleep deprivation elevated response rates for stimuli paired with rest, confirming EOs' role in amplifying reinforcement effectiveness across species.[130]Social and Regulatory Theories
Socio-Cultural Theory
Socio-cultural theory, inspired by Lev Vygotsky, posits that motivation is not an isolated internal process but emerges through social interactions, cultural contexts, and the mediation of tools such as language and symbols.[134] In this framework, individuals develop motivational drives by internalizing social practices that guide behavior and goal pursuit, emphasizing collective influences over innate dispositions.[135] Vygotsky's seminal posthumous work, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (1978), outlines how higher mental functions, including those related to motivation, originate in social activities before becoming individualized through cultural mediation.[134] Central to this theory is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as the difference between what a learner can accomplish independently and what they can achieve with guidance from more knowledgeable others.[134] Within the ZPD, motivation is enhanced through scaffolded learning, where temporary support from peers or adults fosters engagement and intrinsic interest by presenting challenges that are attainable yet demanding.[136] This scaffolding stimulates developmental processes, as "learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers."[134] By aligning tasks with the ZPD, educators can cultivate sustained motivation, transforming external guidance into self-directed effort.[136] Cultural tools, such as language and symbolic systems, play a pivotal role in internalizing motivation by serving as instruments for self-regulation and goal orientation.[134] Vygotsky argued that these tools, initially used in social contexts, become internalized to structure thought and behavior, enabling individuals to motivate themselves through culturally shaped concepts like planning and persistence.[134] For instance, language evolves from a communicative device to an internal tool that organizes motivational processes, allowing learners to articulate and pursue objectives derived from their cultural milieu.[135] This internalization process underscores how motivation is mediated by societal artifacts, adapting to diverse cultural norms.[137] Applications of socio-cultural theory appear prominently in collaborative learning environments, where group interactions within the ZPD promote shared motivation and knowledge construction.[136] In faculty learning communities, for example, instructors internalize teaching strategies through social dialogue, enhancing their motivational approaches to student engagement.[137] Cross-cultural motivation studies further illustrate this, as seen in Taiwanese preschools where ethnic integration leverages Vygotsky's principles to foster identity-based motivation through mediated cultural exchanges among diverse children.[138] These applications highlight how socio-cultural mediation adapts motivation to varied global contexts, emphasizing joint activities that build intrinsic learning interest.[139] Criticisms of socio-cultural theory include its underemphasis on individual agency, portraying learners as overly dependent on social structures and potentially overlooking personal initiative in motivation.[140] Scholars argue that the theory reduces individuals to passive recipients within collective dynamics, neglecting how innate traits or autonomous drives might transcend cultural mediation.[140] For instance, the ZPD concept is faulted for not sufficiently addressing variations in personal motivation that could influence learning outcomes independently of scaffolding.[140]Attribution Theory
Attribution theory, developed by Fritz Heider in his 1958 book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, describes how people act as "naive psychologists" to infer the causes of behaviors and outcomes in order to understand and predict social events.[141] Heider emphasized that these causal attributions shape perceptions of responsibility and control, thereby influencing motivation by determining whether individuals feel capable of altering future results.[141] Central to Heider's framework are two key dimensions: locus of causality, which differentiates internal factors (e.g., personal effort or disposition) from external ones (e.g., luck or situational constraints), and stability, which classifies causes as fixed and enduring (e.g., inherent ability) or variable and temporary (e.g., mood or temporary obstacles).[141] Internal and unstable attributions, such as effort, typically enhance motivation by implying controllability, whereas stable external attributions, like fate, can diminish it by suggesting inevitability.[141] These dimensions help explain why people persist or withdraw in motivational contexts, as attributions affect expectations of success.[141] In 1979, Bernard Weiner extended Heider's ideas into a comprehensive attributional model of achievement motivation, incorporating locus, stability, and a third dimension: controllability (e.g., effort as controllable versus mood as uncontrollable). Weiner's model posits that attributions for success or failure directly impact emotional responses and future expectancies; for example, attributing failure to unstable, controllable causes like insufficient effort boosts persistence, while stable, uncontrollable causes like low aptitude lead to resignation. This framework has been highly influential, with empirical evidence showing that adaptive attributions correlate with higher achievement striving.[142] Learned helplessness, theorized by Martin Seligman in 1975, illustrates the demotivating consequences of maladaptive attributions, particularly when failures are ascribed to stable external factors beyond personal control. In seminal experiments, animals and humans exposed to uncontrollable stressors developed passivity, failing to act even when control became available, due to learned expectations of response-outcome independence. Seligman linked this to attributional styles where stable, global, and external causes (e.g., inescapable bad luck) foster motivational deficits, cognitive interference, and depressive symptoms, contrasting with internal, unstable attributions that preserve agency. Applications of attribution theory in education emphasize shifting students toward effort-based attributions to sustain motivation. For instance, praising effort rather than innate ability encourages children to view challenges as surmountable through increased exertion, leading to greater resilience after failure.[143] In a classic study, Mueller and Dweck (1998) found that fifth-graders praised for intelligence after success later attributed failures to fixed low ability, resulting in reduced task persistence and enjoyment, whereas those praised for effort attributed setbacks to modifiable factors, showing improved performance and adaptive strategies.[143] Complementing this, modern neuroimaging links attribution processes to brain activity; functional MRI studies demonstrate that self-attributions of responsibility activate the right temporoparietal junction, while external attributions engage left-lateralized networks including the precuneus, highlighting neural mechanisms that modulate motivational control in social contexts.[144]Self-Control
Self-control refers to the capacity to regulate one's impulses, emotions, and behaviors in order to pursue long-term goals over immediate gratification, a key process in motivation theories that enables individuals to override short-term temptations for greater future benefits.[145] This ability is central to achieving personal and professional objectives, as it involves executive functions like inhibition and decision-making that align actions with valued standards.[146] In motivational contexts, self-control operates as a regulatory mechanism that sustains goal-directed behavior amid conflicting desires.[147] A seminal model of self-control is Roy Baumeister's 1998 limited resource theory, often described as the "strength model," which posits that willpower functions like a muscle that can be temporarily depleted through use but also strengthened over time.[148] According to this view, exerting self-control on one task—such as suppressing thoughts or making difficult choices—draws from a finite pool of mental energy, leading to ego depletion and reduced performance on subsequent self-regulatory tasks. Experimental evidence supporting this includes studies where participants who resisted eating cookies performed worse on persistence tasks afterward, illustrating the model's core idea of resource limitation. The marshmallow test, developed by Walter Mischel in 1972, provides an early empirical foundation for understanding self-control through delay of gratification, where children who waited longer for a preferred reward (two marshmallows instead of one) demonstrated superior impulse regulation skills.[149] This paradigm highlighted cognitive strategies, such as diverting attention from the reward, that children used to sustain self-control, linking early regulatory abilities to later life outcomes like academic success.[150] Mischel's work underscored self-control as a trainable skill rooted in attentional and cognitive mechanisms, influencing subsequent motivation research on goal pursuit.[151] One effective technique for bolstering self-control is the use of implementation intentions, as outlined by Peter Gollwitzer in 1999, which involve forming specific "if-then" plans that link situational cues to desired actions, thereby automating responses and reducing reliance on depleted willpower.[152] For example, planning "if it is 7 PM, then I will exercise" helps bridge the intention-behavior gap by delegating control to environmental triggers, leading to higher goal attainment rates in meta-analyses.[153] This strategy enhances self-regulation efficiency without exhausting limited resources.[154] Applications of self-control models extend to habit formation, where consistent exertion of willpower initially builds automatic routines that eventually require less regulatory effort, as seen in behavioral interventions promoting exercise adherence.[155] In addiction recovery, self-control training draws on the strength model to help individuals resist cravings, with programs incorporating glucose replenishment or rest to counteract depletion and support sustained abstinence.[156] These applications demonstrate how understanding self-control as a depletable yet replenishable resource informs practical strategies for long-term behavioral change.[157] Despite its influence, Baumeister's ego depletion model has faced significant criticisms due to replication failures in post-2010 studies, including a 2016 multilab preregistered effort involving over 2,000 participants that found no reliable evidence of depletion effects. These issues, part of the broader replication crisis in psychology, have prompted debates over methodological flaws like inadequate control conditions and suggest that motivational factors or expectations may drive observed effects rather than a true resource limit.[158] Consequently, contemporary views emphasize process models of self-control over strict resource metaphors. Procrastination often manifests as a failure of self-control, where immediate task avoidance overrides long-term productivity goals.[159]Procrastination
Procrastination refers to the voluntary delay of intended actions despite anticipating negative consequences, often driven by a preference for short-term emotional relief over long-term benefits.[117] This behavior manifests in various forms, including active and passive types, as well as chronic and situational patterns. Active procrastination involves intentional delay to optimize performance under pressure, where individuals purposefully postpone tasks to enhance creativity or focus, leading to comparable or better outcomes than non-procrastinators. In contrast, passive procrastination stems from avoidance and indecision, resulting in rushed or incomplete work and heightened stress. Chronic procrastination represents a habitual trait affecting multiple life domains over time, while situational procrastination occurs sporadically in response to specific tasks perceived as aversive or overwhelming.[160] A meta-analysis of over 690 correlations from prior studies estimates that chronic procrastination affects approximately 15-20% of adults, underscoring its prevalence as a significant self-regulatory challenge.[117] This rate highlights the need to understand underlying mechanisms, particularly emotional factors. According to the emotional regulation perspective, procrastination serves as a maladaptive strategy for mood repair, where individuals delay tasks to evade negative emotions like anxiety or boredom associated with them.[161] By prioritizing immediate emotional relief through avoidance—such as engaging in pleasurable distractions—procrastinators temporarily alleviate distress, though this perpetuates a cycle of guilt and further delays.[161] This theory posits that procrastination arises from difficulties in tolerating task-related negative affect, linking it to broader self-control deficits where immediate impulses override goal-directed behavior.[162] Effective interventions for procrastination emphasize building skills to address both cognitive and behavioral aspects. Time management techniques, such as setting specific deadlines and breaking tasks into smaller steps, help reduce overwhelm and promote structured progress.[163] Cognitive restructuring, a core component of cognitive-behavioral therapy, targets irrational beliefs about tasks—such as perfectionism or fear of failure—by encouraging realistic reframing and self-compassion.[163] A meta-analysis of 23 intervention studies found that cognitive-behavioral approaches yielded moderate effect sizes in reducing procrastination, outperforming non-therapeutic methods like motivational training.[163] Recent research in the 2020s has increasingly examined digital distractions as exacerbators of procrastination, particularly among younger populations. Smartphone notifications and social media platforms facilitate rapid shifts to rewarding but irrelevant activities, amplifying avoidance behaviors and extending delay periods.[164] For instance, studies show that higher smartphone addiction correlates with elevated academic procrastination through increased distraction and diminished focus, with mediation effects observed in self-reported data from undergraduates.[165] Interventions incorporating digital mindfulness training, such as app blockers, have shown promise in mitigating these effects by restoring attentional control.[166]Advanced and Specialized Concepts
Achievement Motivation
Achievement motivation refers to the internal drive that propels individuals to pursue and accomplish challenging goals, often involving the desire to demonstrate competence or avoid failure. This concept emphasizes the psychological processes underlying persistence in tasks where success depends on personal effort and ability, distinguishing it from extrinsic rewards. Key theories highlight how motives to approach success compete with fears of failure, influencing risk-taking and goal orientation in achievement contexts.[167] John W. Atkinson's risk-taking model, proposed in 1957, posits that achievement behavior arises from the interaction of two primary motives: the motive to approach success (Ms), which drives individuals toward tasks offering moderate probability of success (around 50%), and the motive to avoid failure (Maf), which leads to risk aversion or selection of easier tasks to minimize negative outcomes. The overall tendency to engage in achievement-related activities is calculated as a resultant force: Ts = Ms × Ps × Is - Maf × Pf × If, where Ps and Pf represent the probability of success or failure, and Is and If are the incentives associated with each. This model predicts that high achievers select moderately difficult tasks to maximize personal satisfaction, while those high in fear of failure prefer very easy or impossible tasks to either guarantee success or excuse failure.[167] Susan Harter's competence motivation theory, introduced in 1978, builds on this by framing achievement motivation as an intrinsic need to master challenges and develop skills, where perceived competence fosters intrinsic motivation and persistence. Harter argued that children and adults are driven by effectance motivation—an innate desire to control and influence their environment—leading to exploratory behaviors that enhance self-efficacy in specific domains like academics or athletics. Optimal development occurs when individuals experience success in progressively challenging tasks, reinforcing a sense of mastery; conversely, repeated failure can undermine motivation unless attributed to controllable factors.[168] Carol Dweck's mindset theory, elaborated in 2006, differentiates between mastery goals, which focus on learning and self-improvement regardless of performance outcomes, and performance goals, which emphasize demonstrating ability or outperforming others. Individuals with a growth mindset view abilities as malleable through effort, leading to adaptive strategies like seeking challenges and learning from setbacks, whereas a fixed mindset treats abilities as static, prompting avoidance of risks to protect self-esteem. This framework, rooted in earlier work on goal orientations, explains why mastery-oriented individuals sustain motivation in the face of obstacles, while performance-oriented ones may disengage upon perceived threats to competence. The Achievement Motive Questionnaire (AMQ), developed by Dov Elizur in 1979, serves as a key self-report measure to assess these dimensions, featuring 18 items that capture facets such as standards of excellence, competitiveness, and mastery striving on a Likert scale. It has demonstrated reliability in distinguishing approach and avoidance tendencies across cultures and occupational groups, providing a practical tool for diagnosing motivational profiles. Attributions for achievement outcomes, such as effort versus ability, can briefly modulate these motives but are secondary to the core drives outlined here.[169] In sports psychology, achievement motivation theories inform interventions to enhance athlete performance, such as fostering mastery goals to build resilience during competitions, as evidenced by studies showing that high-achievement-motivated athletes exhibit greater persistence in training regimens. In education, these concepts guide pedagogical strategies, like praising effort over innate talent to cultivate growth mindsets, which longitudinal research links to improved academic outcomes and reduced dropout rates among students facing challenges.[170][171]Approach versus Avoidance
Approach versus avoidance refers to a fundamental motivational conflict in which individuals experience competing tendencies: approach behaviors driven by the anticipation of positive outcomes or rewards, and avoidance behaviors motivated by the fear of negative outcomes or punishments. This framework, rooted in behavioral and cognitive psychology, explains how such oppositions can generate internal tension, indecision, and stress, influencing decision-making and emotional regulation. Unlike unidirectional motivational forces, approach-avoidance dynamics highlight the simultaneous activation of appetitive and aversive systems, often leading to approach when rewards outweigh risks and avoidance when threats dominate. A key biopsychological model articulating this distinction is Jeffrey Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST), introduced in his 1982 work, which posits two primary systems: the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) for approach-oriented responses to rewarding stimuli, and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) for avoidance responses to punishing or novel stimuli. The BAS facilitates goal-directed behavior by increasing sensitivity to cues of reinforcement, such as rewards or opportunities for gain, thereby promoting engagement and persistence. In contrast, the BIS triggers inhibition, risk assessment, and withdrawal in the presence of potential threats, heightening vigilance and anxiety. Gray's framework, derived from animal studies and extended to human motivation, underscores how imbalances between these systems contribute to individual differences in personality and psychopathology. Integration with prospect theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979, further elucidates how approach-avoidance conflicts manifest in decision-making under uncertainty. Prospect theory demonstrates that people are generally loss-averse, with losses perceived as more impactful than equivalent gains—a phenomenon where the psychological weight of potential avoidance (e.g., avoiding losses) often overshadows approach motivations (e.g., pursuing gains). This asymmetry explains why individuals might forgo rewarding opportunities to evade risks, as the pain of losses looms larger in subjective evaluations. Empirical evidence from choice experiments supports this, showing steeper value functions for losses than gains, which amplifies avoidance tendencies in motivational conflicts. Conditioned taste aversion exemplifies rapid avoidance learning, a phenomenon extensively studied by John Garcia in the 1970s, where organisms quickly associate novel tastes with subsequent illness, even after delayed exposure, bypassing traditional conditioning timelines. This form of avoidance overrides approach instincts for palatable foods due to the overriding salience of the aversive outcome, illustrating how biological preparedness can prioritize threat avoidance over reward seeking. Garcia's research, initially with rats, revealed that such learning occurs after a single pairing and resists extinction, highlighting an adaptive mechanism for survival that favors avoidance in uncertain environments. In clinical applications, approach-avoidance conflicts underpin anxiety disorders, where heightened BIS activation leads to excessive avoidance of perceived threats, perpetuating cycles of worry and behavioral restriction. For instance, in generalized anxiety disorder, individuals exhibit overactive inhibition responses to ambiguous stimuli, impairing approach toward everyday goals. Similarly, in decision-making contexts like economic choices or health behaviors, these conflicts influence outcomes; therapy approaches, such as exposure techniques, aim to recalibrate BAS-BIS balance by gradually reducing avoidance. Neuroimaging studies confirm this, linking avoidance to amygdala hyperactivity, which processes fear and threat signals, while approach correlates with nucleus accumbens activation, central to reward anticipation and dopamine-mediated motivation.[172]Unconscious Motivation
Unconscious motivation refers to the influence of drives, goals, and conflicts that operate without conscious awareness, shaping behavior and decision-making. In Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the human psyche is divided into the id, ego, and superego, where unconscious processes drive motivation through instinctual impulses and internal tensions. The id embodies primitive, pleasure-seeking urges such as aggression and libido, operating entirely unconsciously and demanding immediate satisfaction regardless of consequences.[173] The ego functions as a conscious mediator, balancing the id's demands with reality, while the superego imposes moral constraints derived from societal norms, often generating unconscious conflicts that manifest as anxiety, repression, or neurotic symptoms influencing motivational patterns.[174] These conflicts arise when the ego fails to reconcile the id's raw drives with the superego's ideals, leading to repressed motivations that subtly direct actions without the individual's awareness.[175] Building on Freudian ideas, modern research in the 1990s, led by psychologist John Bargh, demonstrated through priming experiments that environmental cues can unconsciously activate and sustain goal pursuit, mimicking conscious self-regulation. In one seminal study, participants exposed to words associated with cooperation unconsciously adopted prosocial behaviors in subsequent tasks, persisting even after the prime faded, illustrating how automatic processes guide motivation without deliberate intent.[176] Bargh's work proposed that goals, once nonconsciously triggered, operate like conscious intentions by directing attention, energizing effort, and evaluating progress toward outcomes.[177] This automaticity conserves cognitive resources, allowing unconscious motivation to influence everyday behaviors such as helping or achieving without awareness of the underlying trigger. Implicit motivation, distinct from explicit forms, involves unconscious needs assessed via projective methods like the Picture Story Exercise (PSE), where individuals interpret ambiguous images to reveal underlying strivings for power, achievement, or affiliation. In the PSE, coded narratives uncover implicit motives that energize spontaneous behavior through affective incentives, often uncorrelated with explicit motives captured by self-report questionnaires, which reflect socially desirable or reasoned goals.[178] For instance, high implicit achievement motivation predicts persistent effort in challenging tasks without conscious planning, whereas explicit measures better predict goal selection based on verbalized intentions.[179] This dissociation highlights how implicit processes provide raw motivational energy, while explicit ones involve cognitive deliberation. Applications of unconscious motivation extend to advertising, where subtle cues tap into Freudian drives to evoke desires and influence purchases without rational scrutiny. Early 20th-century ad campaigns drew on psychoanalytic insights to symbolize repressed urges, fostering brand loyalty through emotional resonance rather than logical appeals.[180] In therapeutic contexts, psychoanalysis employs techniques like free association and dream analysis to unearth unconscious conflicts, enabling patients to resolve motivational blockages that fuel symptoms such as phobias or compulsions.[181] By bringing hidden drives to awareness, this approach facilitates healthier motivational alignments. Criticisms of unconscious motivation theories center on their limited testability, as claims about inaccessible mental processes resist empirical falsification and rely heavily on interpretive inference.[182] Freud's constructs, in particular, have been faulted for vagueness, making it challenging to distinguish genuine unconscious influences from post-hoc explanations. Recent advancements, however, bolster support through late 2010s fMRI evidence revealing neural activation in reward and decision-making regions—such as the ventral striatum—during implicit motivational tasks without conscious report, indicating subcortical processing of unconscious goals.[183] These findings address testability concerns by providing objective biomarkers for nonconscious influences on behavior. Conscious processes can occasionally override these automatic motivations, though such interventions require deliberate effort.Mental Fatigue
Mental fatigue in the context of motivation refers to a state of motivational depletion arising from sustained cognitive exertion, which diminishes an individual's capacity for further effortful tasks and reduces persistence in goal-directed behavior. This phenomenon, often studied through the lens of ego depletion, posits that the self's resources for active volition are limited, leading to impaired performance on subsequent self-regulatory tasks after initial exertion.[184] Early research demonstrated that participants who engaged in an effortful task, such as suppressing thoughts or emotions, exhibited reduced persistence on a subsequent frustrating activity compared to those in low-effort conditions. A landmark 2016 multi-lab replication study, however, failed to consistently reproduce these effects, highlighting methodological challenges and contributing to ongoing debates in the field. A key aspect of the original ego depletion framework involved the glucose hypothesis, which suggested that self-control operates like a muscle fueled by glucose, with depletion resulting from lowered blood glucose levels that impair neural functioning.[185] Proponents argued that replenishing glucose, such as through sweetened beverages, could restore self-regulatory capacity, as depleted individuals showed improved performance after glucose intake.[186] However, subsequent studies have largely failed to support this mechanism, finding no consistent restorative effect from glucose consumption or even mouth rinsing with glucose solutions, prompting a reevaluation of the metabolic basis for depletion.[187] More recent conceptualizations have shifted toward a motivational process model, emphasizing that ego depletion reflects a temporary reallocation of priorities rather than resource exhaustion, where initial effort leads to reduced motivation for unrewarding tasks and heightened sensitivity to alternative rewards.[188] This model, advanced by Inzlicht and colleagues, proposes that after self-control exertion, attention shifts away from long-term goals toward immediate temptations or rest, effectively conserving energy by deprioritizing further cognitive demands.[189] Common symptoms include diminished self-control, manifesting as quicker task abandonment or impulsive choices, and decision fatigue, where prolonged choices lead to simplified or avoided decisions to minimize cognitive load.[190] Interventions to mitigate mental fatigue focus on restoration and motivational adjustment; brief periods of rest allow recovery of regulatory capacity, akin to muscle recuperation after strain.[191] Additionally, reframing tasks to enhance intrinsic motivation—such as emphasizing personal relevance or positive outcomes—can counteract depletion by realigning priorities toward sustained effort.[192] In practical applications, mental fatigue has been linked to performance declines in high-stakes scenarios like extended exam sessions, where students show reduced accuracy after initial rigorous problem-solving, and shift work, where overnight rotations exacerbate depletion and impair decision-making in safety-critical roles.[193] Despite its influence, the ego depletion paradigm has faced significant critiques amid the replication crisis in psychology, with large-scale multi-site studies failing to consistently reproduce the effect under stringent controls, leading to debates over methodological artifacts like expectation biases or task demands.[194] These challenges have prompted calls for refined models that integrate motivational shifts while emphasizing replicable, context-specific factors over a singular resource depletion view.[195]Learned Industriousness
Learned industriousness describes the psychological process through which repeated reinforcement of effortful behaviors leads individuals to develop an intrinsic valuation of hard work, transforming effort from an aversive stimulus into a secondary reinforcer that promotes persistence across diverse tasks.[196] In his 1992 theory, Robert Eisenberger proposed that when high levels of physical or cognitive effort are consistently paired with primary rewards—such as food for animals or success for humans—the sensation of exertion itself acquires conditioned rewarding properties, thereby reducing its inherent unpleasantness and generalizing a trait-like tendency toward industriousness.[196] This conditioning occurs through classical association, where effort serves as a neutral stimulus that, over time, elicits motivational responses similar to the primary reinforcer.[197] Supporting experiments with rats illustrate this mechanism: in one study, animals trained to press a lever with high force (requiring multiple shuttles for a food pellet) later demonstrated superior persistence in a runway task during extinction phases, completing more runs for food than rats trained with low-effort requirements.[198] Similarly, rats exposed to high-effort lever-pressing schedules showed a preference for complex, effort-intensive options over easier alternatives in choice paradigms, indicating transfer of industriousness to novel contexts.[196] In educational settings, learned industriousness has practical applications for cultivating grit by implementing challenging curricula that reward sustained effort, such as high-ratio reinforcement schedules where students receive praise or success only after completing demanding tasks.[198] For instance, learning-disabled children trained under effort-contingent rewards improved their performance in math and handwriting, persisting longer on subsequent academic exercises compared to those under low-effort conditions.[198] College students reinforced for producing longer, more effortful essays also generalized this persistence to unrelated cognitive tasks, producing higher-quality work.[198] This concept relates to Carol Dweck's growth mindset theory, as both emphasize effort as a pathway to mastery; learned industriousness provides a behavioral reinforcement mechanism that complements the cognitive belief that abilities can be developed through hard work, potentially enhancing long-term academic resilience.[196][199] Criticisms of the theory highlight its limitations to specific contexts where effort-reward contingencies are reliably established, with less evidence for spontaneous generalization in unpredictable environments; additionally, alternative explanations like cognitive dissonance or rule-learning may account for some transfer effects without invoking secondary reinforcement.[198] While mental fatigue can serve as a short-term counterforce by increasing the perceived cost of effort, learned industriousness tends to prevail over extended periods with consistent reinforcement.[196]Reversal Theory
Reversal theory, developed by psychologist Michael J. Apter, posits that human motivation, emotion, and personality are characterized by dynamic shifts between opposing psychological states known as metamotivational modes.[200] These modes organize experience into discrete pairs, where individuals alternate between states rather than existing in stable traits, challenging traditional static views of motivation. Apter introduced the theory in detail in his 1982 book, The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals, which integrates concepts from phenomenology and structuralism to explain variability in behavior and feelings.[201][200] The theory identifies four pairs of metamotivational modes, each representing bipolar alternatives that structure motivational experience:- Telic-paratelic: In the telic mode, individuals are serious-minded, goal-oriented, and prefer low arousal to achieve future-oriented ends; in contrast, the paratelic mode is playful, focused on immediate activity, and seeks high arousal for excitement.[200]
- Conformist-negativistic: The conformist mode emphasizes adherence to rules and social norms for stability, while the negativistic mode involves rebelliousness and defiance to assert autonomy.[200]
- Mastery-sympathy: Mastery mode prioritizes self-assertion and control over the environment, whereas sympathy mode centers on empathy and accommodation toward others.[200]
- Autic-alloic: The autic mode is self-focused, evaluating outcomes based on personal benefit, while the alloic mode is other-focused, assessing value through impact on others.[200]
