Behavioristic approaches to motivation

The behavioristic approach examines how motives are learned and how internal drives and external goals interact with learning to produce behaviour. Learning theorists have taken a somewhat more global perspective when studying motivation than researchers using the biological approach. These researchers have regarded motivation as one component out of several that combine to cause behaviour. Thus, for example, one major theory regards learning and motivation as combining multiplicatively to determine behaviour. Among the behavioristic approaches, three concepts are especially prominent: drive, learned motives, and incentives.

Although in many respects Freuds psychoanalytic theory of behaviour was a drive theory, the term drive was first used by Robert S. Woodworth, an American psychologist, in 1918. The concept of drive is closely tied to the concept of homeostasis. It was assumed that drive would be triggered when internal conditions changed enough to be detected and to initiate the motivational changes that amounted to drive. Thus it was assumed that some tissue need within the body would instigate drive, which would, in turn, instigate behaviours aimed at reducing the drive. According to this sort of analysis, energy depletion would lead to a hunger drive, which would in turn lead to food-seeking behaviours. Drive, then, would serve to energize appropriate behaviours, either innate or learned, which would effect a lowering of the need state of the individual.

The most extensive theoretical model of drive was developed by Clark Hull in the 1940s. Hull argued that drive is general in nature and that various motives such as hunger, thirst, or sex may add to the overall drive level of an individual. Since drive was regarded as the instigator of behaviour, increases in drive level were expected to lead to increases in activity. According to Hulls model, drive is directed by what he termed drive stimuli. These internal stimuli were thought to be different for different motives and to direct the activity of an individual in ways appropriate for the particular motive state present. Thus, for example, a hungry person might go to the refrigerator seeking food because drive stimuli linked with hunger had been associated with responses of obtaining food from the refrigerator in the past.

Finally, Hull suggested that learning itself depends upon adequate drive. Responses were thought to be strengthened when followed by drive or drive-stimulus reduction. If drive or drive stimuli were not reduced, then learning would not occur.

Hulls drive theory generated a tremendous body of research, but the model of motivation he evolved was not more effective than others in explaining behaviour. For example, studies showed that increases in activity that occur when subjects are deprived depend largely on the species of the subject and the manner in which the activity is tested. Some species do not become more active when deprived, and changes in activity that are apparent when one type of apparatus is used (e.g., a running wheel) are not seen when other types of apparatus (e.g., a stabilimeter cagefor measuring caged animal activity) are used. Furthermore, drive stimuli, the proposed directional mechanism in Hulls model, have proved to be very elusive, and it is not clear that under normal circumstances their presence, if they exist, is crucial to the direction of behaviour. Finally, several studies have shown that learning can occur under circumstances that would seem to preclude any reduction in drive or drive stimuli. Since Hulls model tied learning to a reduction in drive, these studies pose a problem. Although explicit theoretical models of drive have not proved to be any better at explaining motivation than other approaches, the drive concept, in general, would seem to have some validity if only because people often express their subjective feelings of motivation in terms that suggest they are driven. In particular, the drive concept would often seem to apply to feelings associated with human sexual motivation. The drive theory no longer has wide acceptance in the motivational field.

One of the most significant contributions that the learning approach has made to the study of motivation is its emphasis on the ability of individuals to learn new motives. It has been demonstrated that new motives may be acquired as a result of three learning techniques: classical, instrumental, and observational learning.

In classical conditioning, also called Pavlovian conditioning, a neutral stimulus gains the ability to elicit a response as a result of being paired with another stimulus that already causes that response. Such learning situations can then lead to changes in motivated behaviour. Pavlov, for example, showed that dogs would develop what appeared to be neurotic behaviour if they were required to make finer and finer discriminations between stimuli in a classical conditioning discrimination experiment. The dogs became motivated to avoid the experiment room, were restless during the experimental session, and sometimes bit the apparatus. The neurosis developed when the dogs were no longer able to discriminate between the two stimuli presented to them. Later researchers have noted that this motivational change may have resulted from a lack of predictability or control on the part of the animal rather than from the classical conditioning process per se.

In 1920 the American psychologists John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner demonstrated the development of an emotional response in a young boy using classical conditioning techniques. The presentation of a white rat was paired with the striking of a steel bar, which induced fear in the little boy. After only a few pairings, the white rat became capable of inducing fear responses similar to those produced by striking the bar. This early demonstration of learned emotional responses has suggested to psychologists that many human motives may result from the accidental pairing of events. It has been proposed that some fears, phobias, taste aversions, and even eating problems can result from classical conditioning.

The second type of learning technique is instrumental learning, or conditioning, also called operant conditioning. In this type of conditioning a response is followed by some consequence which then changes the future probability of that response. For example, instrumental conditioning appears to be one way in which aggressive motivation can be changed. If an aggressive response by one child toward another child is followed by some positive event such as the aggressor getting to play with a desired toy, then the motivation to behave aggressively can be expected to increase in the future. Furthermore, through a process called conditioned reinforcement, neutral stimuli associated with a reinforcer can become reinforcers in their own right. These stimuli can then be used to motivate behaviour. Perhaps the most common example of a conditioned reinforcer is money. A piece of paper with numbers and intricate drawings on it can motivate all sorts of behaviour if that paper has previously been associated with important reinforcers such as food, clothing, sex, and so forth. Money is in effect a token of the things it can buy. Psychologists have used different types of tokens as rewards to implement reinforcement, and token economies, involving the principles of conditioned reinforcement, have been successfully used to alter behaviour in schools, institutions, and hospitals (see below Applications in society).

In the third type of learning technique, observational learning, or modeling, a new behaviour is learned simply by watching someone else behave. In a very real sense, such learning is the ability to profit from anothers successes or mistakes. This type of learning is important because the learning can occur without an individual ever having to perform the behaviour. Thus, watching another child put a finger in an electrical outlet and get shocked is often enough to keep the observing child from behaving the same way. Similarly, noticing that friends do well in school because they study hard may be a sufficient stimulus to motivate students. Albert Bandura, an American psychologist, proposed, and provided a wealth of support for, the observational learning of aggression in humans. He showed that young children will mimic the aggressive responses they see performed by adults. Such aggressive responses can potentially be learned by observation of violent acts on television or in movies or by reading or hearing about violent behaviour. If the observed violent acts are further perceived to lead to desired goals, then the observed aggressive behaviours may be utilized at some future date by the observer.

Research indicates that persons also learn their societys rules of sexual conduct through observation. These sexual values are taught in part by parents, clergy, political leaders, books, movies, and television. Although the learning is often indirect, people nevertheless learn how to express their sexuality. The rules for sexual behaviour in a given culture appear to be learned during adolescence. In monkeys, social isolation impairs sexual functioning. Although isolated monkeys seem to have adequate sexual motivation, the lack of appropriate social skills results in inappropriate behaviours. Thus, learning would appear to be a significant factor in normal sexual behaviour. It is generally thought that certain sexual preferences are also learned, by one technique or another. In one experiment a boot fetish was established in three males by pairing pictures of boots with pictures of nude women (at the conclusion of the experiment the fetish was extinguished). Such a demonstration would seem to indicate that some sexual preferences are learned.

One area within the study of human motivation that has proved fruitful is research on incentives. Incentive motivation is concerned with the way goals influence behaviour. For example, a person might be willing to travel across the city to dine at a special restaurant that served a favourite dish. On the other hand, that same person might not be willing to travel the same distance to eat an ordinary frankfurter. The two meals have different incentive values and motivate behaviour to differing degrees.

It is often assumed that the stimulus characteristics of the goal are what produce the goals motivating properties. Thus, the taste, smell, and texture of one food would motivate behaviour better than these qualities in another food. Unlike drives, which were thought to be innate, incentives are usually considered to be learned. An individual is not born preferring one goal over another, but rather these preferences develop as new goals are experienced. Incentive motivation is not restricted to goals associated with the primary motives of hunger, thirst, sex, or avoidance of pain. Indeed, one of the most important aspects of this type of motivation is that any goal one seeks can motivate behaviour. For example, the goal of obtaining a high-paying job could serve as a strong motivator for studying hard in school. Goals serving as incentive motivators do not even need to physically exist at the time they activate behaviour, such as might be the case for someone who is motivated to get high grades now in order to eventually get into medical school.

Theoretical explanations of incentive motivation have ranged from mechanical stimulus-response approaches based on classical conditioning to cognitive approaches emphasizing the learning of expectancies, as discussed in the section below. Several theories have emphasized the role of predictive cues in the development of incentive motivation. Researchers concerned primarily with human motivation have suggested that much of human behaviour can be understood as being directed toward specific goals.

Cognitive theories of motivation assume that behaviour is directed as a result of the active processing and interpretation of information. Motivation is not seen as a mechanical or innate set of processes but as a purposive and persistent set of behaviours based on the information available. Expectations, based on past experiences, serve to direct behaviour toward particular goals.

Important concepts of cognitive motivation theory include expectancy-value theory, attribution theory, cognitive dissonance, self-perception, and self-actualization.

According to expectancy-value theory, behaviour is a function of the expectancies one has and the value of the goal toward which one is working [expressed as B = f(E V)]. Such an approach predicts that, when more than one behaviour is possible, the behaviour chosen will be the one with the largest combination of expected success and value. Expectancy-value theory has proved useful in the explanation of social behaviours, achievement motivation, and work motivation. Examination of its use in achievement motivation can serve to represent the various types of expectancy-value motivations.

Achievement was initially recognized as an important source of human motivation by the American psychologist Henry Murray in the late 1930s. Although Murray identified achievement motivation as important to the behaviour of many people, it was the American psychologists David McClelland and John Atkinson who devised a way of measuring differences in achievement motivation. These researchers used Murrays Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a series of ambiguous pictures about which people were asked to write stories (as a determination of personality traits), to measure differences in achievement motivation. Using a technique known as content analysis, the stories were scored for achievement imagery. Based on a substantial body of research, a theoretical model was developed that rested upon the fundamental concepts of expectancy and goal value.

The expectancy-value model of achievement motivation proposes that the overall tendency to achieve in a particular situation depends upon two stable motivesa motive for success and a motive to avoid failureand the subjective evaluation of the probability of success in the situation. The motive for success is regarded as a relatively stable personality characteristic by the time adulthood is reached. Ones motive for success is believed to result from learning in prior achievement situations where the individual has performed successfully. Thus, someone who has, for the most part, had successful experiences in the past is thought to be highly achievement-oriented. The motive to avoid failure is also assumed to be relatively stable by adulthood and represents the compilation of those prior instances where achievement behaviours were unsuccessful. It is argued that someone who has made many unsuccessful attempts in achievement situations will develop a strong motive to avoid failure.

Since almost everyone has experienced both successes and failures during development, the theory assumes that each person has differing degrees of both motivation for success and motivation to avoid failure. These two motivations are opposing tendencies, and as a result the difference in strength between the two will determine whether a given individual is an achiever or not. People with high motivation for success and low motivation to avoid failure will be achievement-oriented, while people with strong motivation to avoid failure and weak motivation for success will try to avoid most achievement situations if possible.

The expected probability of success in a particular achievement situation is also important in this achievement theory. The theory predicts that persons highly motivated for success will tend to choose to participate in achievement situations that they judge to be moderately difficult, while the theory also predicts that people highly motivated to avoid failure will tend to choose tasks that they judge to be either very easy or extremely difficult. The choices made by people either highly motivated to achieve success or to avoid failure differ because of the differing value of easy, moderate, and difficult goals for these two types of people. The model mathematically predicts that goals that require moderate effort to achieve will have the greatest value for persons highly motivated for success. Stated another way, high achievers want to obtain goals that are difficult enough to have some value but not so difficult as to be impossible or so easy as to be worthless. Persons with strong motivation to avoid failure believe they are likely to be unsuccessful. For this reason, the theory predicts that they would prefer easy tasks where success is likely or tasks so difficult that little embarrassment would ensue if they fail.

Attempts to test these predictions have met with mixed results. Some studies have found that people scoring high in motivation for success do often choose tasks that they consider moderately difficult, while other studies have failed to find such results. Also, persons scoring high in motivation to avoid failure do sometimes choose very easy tasks, as the theory predicts, but often do not choose very difficult tasks as also predicted. Clearly much research remains to be done before the models accuracy in predicting achievement behaviour can be judged.

A second major approach to achievement motivation rejects the expectancy-value formulation and analyzes instead the attributions that people make about achievement situations. In general, attribution theory concerns how people make judgments about someones (or their own) behaviourthat is, the causes to which they attribute behaviour. Considerable research has found that people typically attribute behaviour either to stable personality characteristics, termed dispositions, or to the situations that were present at the time the behaviour occurred.

In regard to achievement behaviour, the attributions of ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck are argued to be especially important in determining future achievement motivation. For example, when a person is successful at a task and attributes that success to ability, that person is likely to approach new achievement situations in the future. Similarly, if the success was attributed to an intense effort, future achievement behaviour would depend upon a willingness to expend such effort in the future. Task difficulty appears to be judged from social norms. If most people are unsuccessful at a task, it is judged to be difficult, and, if most people are successful, the task is judged to be easy. The attribution of success to task difficulty therefore, would be expected to modify future achievement behaviour. If success was judged to be due to the fact that the task was very easy, future achievement behaviour would not be expected to change much; however, success in a task judged to be very difficult might prompt a person to expand the range of tasks he or she is willing to attempt. Ascriptions of luck in an achievement task would also influence future achievement behaviour. Basically, luck is assumed when a person expects to have no control over the outcome in the task. Success attributed to luck is not expected to increase future achievement behaviour much, nor would failure attributed to bad luck be expected to decrease it much.

Research on the attributions people make in achievement-related situations suggests that the four causal ascriptions mentioned above and perhaps other ascriptions as well can best be understood as falling along three dimensions: locus, stability, and controllability. Locus refers to the location, internal or external, of the perceived cause of a success or failure. Ability and effort, for example, are seen as internal dispositions of a person, while task difficulty and luck are situational factors external to the person. Stability refers to how much a given reason for success or failure could be expected to change. Ability and task difficulty are stable and therefore not expected to change much, while effort and luck are unstable and could therefore change dramatically over time. Controllability refers to how much control the individual has over the events of the situation. Causes such as effort are considered to be controllable, whereas luck is uncontrollable.

One of the most popular cognitive approaches to the study of motivation has been the theory of cognitive dissonance, first systematically studied by the American psychologist Leon Festinger. This theory proposed that people attempt to maintain consistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. According to this theory, a motivational state termed cognitive dissonance is produced whenever beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours are inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance is considered to be an aversive state that triggers mechanisms to bring cognitions back into a consistent relationship with one another. Much of the research on cognitive dissonance has centred around what happens when attitudes and behaviours are inconsistent. This research suggests that behavior inconsistent with ones beliefsif there is insufficient justification for the behaviourwill often bring about modification of those beliefs. Suppose, for example, that a person is required to undergo a stressful initiation in order to join a select group. After undergoing this initiation the person discovers that becoming a member of the group does not provide the satisfaction originally expected. Such an outcome should produce cognitive dissonance because the behaviours required and the current belief about the group are inconsistent. As a result, the theory suggests that motivation will be triggered to bring the dissonant elements back into a consistent relationship. The behaviour cannot be changed because it has already occurred; the belief, on the other hand can be changed. Under these conditions dissonance theory predicts that the persons attitude will change and that he will actually come to believe that he likes the group more. Several studies have supported this prediction.

Cognitive dissonance approaches have not gone unchallenged. An alternative approach, known as self-perception theory, suggests that all individuals analyze their own behaviour much as an outside observer might and, as a result of these observations, make judgments about why they are motivated to do what they do. Thus, in the example above, self-perception theory would argue that the person, in observing his own behaviour, assesses the effort involved and decides that the initiation was endured because he really wanted to be a member of this group. Dissonance theory and self-perception theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive; several studies suggest that both processes can and do occur but under different conditions.

Cognitive motivational approaches have also explored the idea that human motivation is heavily influenced by a need for competence or control. Although there are several varieties of these theories, most have in common the idea that human behaviour is at least partially motivated by a need to become as much as one can possibly become. One example of this approach is the self-actualization theory of Abraham Maslow previously mentioned.

Maslow has proposed that human motivation can be understood as resulting from a hierarchy of needs. These needs, starting with the most basic physiological demands, progress upward through safety needs, belonging needs, and esteem needs and culminate in self-actualization. Each level directs behaviour toward the need level that is not being adequately met. As lower-level needs are met, the motivation to meet the higher-level needs becomes active. Furthermore, as an individual progresses upward, it becomes progressively more difficult to successfully fulfill the needs of each higher level. For this reason Maslow believed that very few people actually reach the level of self-actualization, and it is a lifelong process for the few who do.

Based on his observations of individuals he believed to be self-actualized, including historical figures such as the U.S. presidents Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, Maslow outlined a cluster of 14 characteristics that distinguish self-actualized individuals. Summarized, these characteristics define individuals who are accepting of themselves and others, are relatively independent of the culture or society in which they live, are somewhat detached but with very close personal ties to a few other people, and are deeply committed to solving problems that they deem important. Additionally, self-actualized individuals intensely appreciate simple or natural events, such as a sunrise, and they sometimes experience profound changes that Maslow termed peak experiences. Although difficult to describe, peak experiences often involve a momentary loss of self and feelings of transcendence. Reports of peak experiences also include the feeling of limitless horizons opening up and of being simultaneously very powerful, yet weak. Peak experiences are extremely positive in nature and often cause an individual to change the direction of his or her future behaviour. Maslow believed that everyone is capable of having peak experiences, but he believed that self-actualized persons have these experiences more often.

Read more from the original source:
Motivation - Behavioristic approaches to motivation ...

Every individual person has different motivations for working at a job. The reasons for working are as individual as the person. But, all people work because the workplace provides something that you need from work. The something that you obtain from your work impacts your morale, yourmotivation, and the quality of your life.

Here are thoughts about employee motivation, what people want from work, and how you can help employees attain what they need for their work motivation.

Some people work for their love of the work; others work for personal and professional fulfillment. Other people like to accomplish goals and feel as if they are contributing to something larger than themselves, something important, an overarching visionfor what they can create. Some people have personal missions they accomplish through meaningful work.

Others truly love what they do or the clients they serve. Some like the camaraderie and interaction with customers and coworkers. Other people like to fill their time with activity. Some workers like change, challenge, and diverse problems to solve. As you can see, employee motivation is individual and diverse.

Whatever your personal reasons for working, the bottom line, however, is that almost everyone works for money. Whatever you call it: compensation, salary, bonuses, benefits or remuneration, money pays the bills. Money provides housing, gives children clothing and food, sends teens to college, and allows leisure activities, and eventually, retirement. Unless you are independently wealthy, you need to work to collect a paycheck.

To underplay the importance of money and benefits as motivation for people who work is a mistake. It may not be their most significant motivatoror even the motivational factor they'd first mention in a conversation but earning a living is a factor in any discussion about employee motivation.

Fair benefits and pay are the cornerstones of a successful company that recruits and retains committed workers. If you provide a living wage for your employees, you can then work on additional motivation issues. Without the fair, living wage, however, you risk losing your best people to a better-paying employer.

In fact, research from Watson Wyatt Worldwide in "The Human Capital Edge: 21 People Management Practices Your Company Must Implement (or Avoid) to Maximize Shareholder Value," recommends, that to attract the best employees, you need to pay more than your average-paying counterparts in the marketplace. Money provides basic motivation.

Surveys and studies dating back to the early 1980s demonstrate that people want more from work than money. An early study of thousands of workers and managers by the American Psychological Association clearly demonstrated this.

Managers predicted that the most important motivational aspect of work for people they employed would be money. Instead, it turned out that personal time and attention from the manager or supervisor was cited by workers as most rewarding and motivational for them at work.

In a "Workforce" article, "The Ten Ironies of Motivation," reward and recognition guru, Bob Nelson, says, "More than anything else, employees want to be valued for a job well done by those they hold in high esteem." He adds that people want to be treated as if they are adult human beings who think, makes decisions, tries to do the right thing, and don't need a caretaker watching over their shoulders.

While what people want from work is situational, depending on the person, his needs and the rewards that are meaningful to him, giving people what they want from work is really quite straightforward. People want:

Employees want people who don't perform fired; in fact, failure to discipline and fire non-performers is one of the most demotivating actions an organization can takeor fail to take. It ranks on the top of the list next to paying poor performers the same wage as non-performers in deflating motivation.

Additionally, the authors found that a disconnect continues to exist between what employers think people want at work and what people say they want for motivation. "Employers far underrate the importance to employees of such things as flexible work schedules or opportunities for advancement in their decision to join or leave a company.

"That means that many companies are working very hard (and using scarce resources) on the wrong tools," say Pfau and Kay. People want employers to pay them above market rates. They seek flexible work schedules. They want stock options, a chance to learn, and the increased sharing of the rationale behind management decisions and direction.

You have much information about what people want from work. Key to creating a work environment that fosters motivation are the wants and needs of the individual employees. The most significant recommendation for your takeaway is that you need to start asking your employees what they want from work and whether they are getting it.

With this information in hand, you'll be surprised at how many simple and inexpensive opportunities you have to create a motivational, desirable work environment. Pay attention to what is important to the people you employ for high motivation and positive morale. When you foster these for people, you'll achieve awesome business success.

Read more from the original source:
What People Want From Work for Motivation

Expectancy Theory of Motivation

The expectancy theory of motivation suggests that when we are thinking about the future, we formulate different expectations about what we think will happen. When we predict that there will most likely be a positive outcome, we believe that we are able to make that possible future a reality. This leads people to feel more motivated to pursue those likely outcomes.

The theory proposes that motivations consistof three key elements: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence refers to the value peopleplace on the potential outcome. Things that seem unlikely to produce personal benefit have a low valence, while those that offer immediate personal rewards have a higher valence.

Instrumentality refers to whether people believe that they have a role to play in the predicted outcome. If the event seems random or outside of the individual's control, people will feel less motivated to pursue that course of action. If the individual plays a major role in the success of the endeavor, however, people will feel more instrumental in the process.

Expectancy is the belief that one has the capabilities to produce the outcome. If people feel like they lack the skills or knowledge to achieve the desired outcome, they will be less motivated to try. People who feel capable, on the other hand, will be more likely to try to reach that goal.

While no single theory can adequately explain all human motivation, looking at the individual theories can offer a greater understanding of the forces that cause us to take action. In reality, there are likely many different forces that interact to motivate behavior.

See more here:
6 Key Ideas Behind Theories of Motivation - Verywell Mind

Definition of Motivation

In literature, motivation is defined as a reason behind a characters specific action or behavior. This type of behavior is characterized by the characters own consent and willingness to do something.

There are two types of motivation: one is intrinsic, while the other one is extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is linked to personal pleasure, enjoyment and interest, while extrinsic motivation is linked to numerous other possibilities. Extrinsic motivation comes from some physical reward such as money, power, or lust. Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is inspired by some internal reward such as knowledge, pride, or spiritual or emotional peace or wellbeing, etc.

Characters have some motivation for every action, as do people in real life. Therefore, the implicit or explicit reference to a motivation of a character makes the piece of literature seem closer to life and reality.

All actions that Hamlet commits in the play are the result of his motivation, such as revenge, justification, and integrity of his character. Throughout the play, revenge remains a constant motivation for Hamlet. He is extremely grieved over his fathers death. His sorrow and grief are aggravated when the Ghost of his father tells him that the murderer has not only taken the throne, but has taken his mother as his bride.

This becomes a motivation for Hamlet to justify his actions and exact revenge for murder most foul, in the words of the Ghost. This motivation is further escalated when he sees his mother married to his uncle, the murderer. In fact, Hamlet finds an opportunity to kill his uncle, but he does not, as King Claudius was praying at the time. Hamlet does not want to send the murderers soul to heaven. This motivation stops him from taking action.

In his introductory soliloquy, Dr. Faustus reveals his motivation very clearly. The chorus already confirms whatever he states in the soliloquy. The chorus informs the audiences of the play that Faustus received his academic degree of doctorate in theology (religion). He earned a doctoral degree only to become overinflated and conceited for his own satisfaction. His self-centered thinking brings up his moral and spiritual downfall. He desires to know more and more even something, which is beyond his capabilities. His motivation is pride in himself, which ultimately destroys him.

According to many literary critics about Shakespeares characters, the most evil of all his female characters is Lady Macbeth, who happens to have the worst motivation behind her actions. She is highly cunning, skillfully manipulative, and much more ambitious than her husband, Macbeth. When she receives a letter from her husband revealing the prophecy of the witches that foretells that Macbeth will be the future king, she at once begins to plan the murder of Duncan.

Then, when Macbeth withdraws from taking action, she motivates and urges him to move forward. Therefore, not only are greed and lust her motivations, but she transfers these motivations to her husband, giving him reason to kill the king.

In literature, motivation is used to connect the behavior and actions of a character with the events of the story. Motivation serves as the logical explanation for what a character does, which is necessary for the readers and audiences to understand the causes of a characters actions. The core desires of characters lead the way to all actions in storytelling.

Sometimes motivations of characters change with the development of the story. With a change in the motivation, the character changes too. For effective characterization, unified and dominant motivation is inevitable. Great characters have great motivations. These characters teach some good or bad moral lessons to the readers and the audiences. The readers and audiences get more interested in motivated characters and understand those motivations, which make or break societies.

See the original post here:
Motivation - Examples and Definition of Motivation

Introduction to Motivational theory [edit]

Alignment of aims, purpose and values between staff, teams and organization is the most fundamental aspect of motivation. The better the alignment and personal association with organizational aims, the better the platform for motivation. Where people find it difficult to align and associate with the organizational aims, then most motivational ideas and activities will have a reduced level of success.

Motivation is a complex area. It's different for each person.Nudge theoryis an example of a powerful change-management concept which emerged in the early 2000s. It's extremely helpful in understanding, teaching, and to a degree managing the ways that people's thinking and decisions are influenced by indirect factors, rather than direct pressure.

Motivational receptiveness and potential in everyone changes from day to day, from situation to situation. Get the alignment and values right, and motivational methods work better. Motivational methods of any sort will not work if people and organisation are not aligned. People are motivated towards something they can relate to and something they can believe in. Times have changed and people want more. You should view the following motivational methods and ideas as structures, activities as building blocks, to be used when you have a solid foundation in place. The foundation is a cohesive alignment of people's needs and values with the aims and purpose of the organization.

Read the original here:
Motivational Theory and Ideas

About to give up? Listen to this compilation and seize the day!Don't forget to subscribe - https://www.youtube.com/mot......

=====================================================Speakers:Eddie PineroArnold SchwarzenegerConor McGregorUsain BoltKevin SpaceyJeff BezosSteve JobsJerry WeintraubJerry JonesWarren BuffetGary VaynerchuckRobin SharmaOprah WinfreySteve HarveyDenzel WashingtonEric ThomasLes Brown Tony Robbins=====================================================Music:

Sunder - Really Slow MotionEverdream - Really Slow MotionLegendary - Really Slow Motion

=====================================================Movies and Footage:

Time Out of MindJobsMr RobotExtremely Loud and IncrediblyKnight of Cups JobsInceptionLucySeven PoundsThe Pursuit of HappinessThe Imitation GameThe Theory of Everything------------------------------------------------------------------------------00:00 - 04:10 Head First by Ping Pong Studio - https://www.youtube.com/wat......4:15 - 9:50 - I WILL WIN by MotivationGridhttps://www.youtube.com/wat......10:00 - 15:40 - Run After Your Destinyhttps://www.youtube.com/wat......15:45 - 19:21 Productivity by Chispa Motivationhttps://www.youtube.com/wat......19:25 - 24:30 - How Much Can You Endurehttps://www.youtube.com/wat......27:30 - 35:20 The Secret of Successful People https://www.youtube.com/wat......35:30 - 41:22 Nothing Will Stop Me https://www.youtube.com/wat......41:30 - 46:23 Unbeatable https://www.youtube.com/wat......46:30 - 51:35 The Psychology of High Achievershttps://www.youtube.com/wat......51:50 - 55:00 Do What Is Hardhttps://www.youtube.com/wat......

Help us caption & translate this video! Show less

More:
MotivationGrid - YouTube

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivators include fascination with the subject, a sense of its relevance to life and the world, a sense of accomplishment in mastering it, and a sense of calling to it.

Students who are intrinsically motivated might say things like the following.

Advantages: Intrinsic motivation can be long-lasting and self-sustaining. Efforts to build this kind of motivation are also typically efforts at promoting student learning. Such efforts often focus on the subject rather than rewards or punishments.

Disadvantages: On the other hand, efforts at fostering intrinsic motivation can be slow to affect behavior and can require special and lengthy preparation. Students are individuals, so a variety of approaches may be needed to motivate different students. It is often helpful to know what interests ones students in order to connect these interests with the subject matter. This requires getting to know ones students. Also, it helps if the instructor is interested in the subject to begin with!

Source: Matt DeLong and Dale Winter,Learning to Teaching and Teaching to Learn Mathematics: Resources for Professional Development, Mathematical Association of America, 2002, page 163.

Extrinsic motivators include parental expectations, expectations of other trusted role models, earning potential of a course of study, and grades (which keep scholarships coming).

Students who are extrinsically motivated might say things like the following.

Advantages: Extrinsic motivators more readily produce behavior changes and typically involve relatively little effort or preparation. Also, efforts at applying extrinsic motivators often do not require extensive knowledge of individual students.

Disadvantages: On the other hand, extrinsic motivators can often distract students from learning the subject at hand. It can be challenging to devise appropriate rewards and punishments for student behaviors. Often, one needs to escalate the rewards and punishments over time to maintain a certain effect level. Also, extrinsic motivators typically do not work over the long term. Once the rewards or punishments are removed, students lose their motivation.

Source: Matt DeLong and Dale Winter,Learning to Teaching and Teaching to Learn Mathematics: Resources for Professional Development, Mathematical Association of America, 2002, page 163.

Furthermore, research indicates thatextrinsic rewards can have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. In one series of experiments, psychologist Edward Deci had two groups of college students play with a puzzle called Soma. One group of students was paid for each puzzle they solved; the other wasnt. He found that the group that was paid to solve puzzles stopped solving puzzles as soon as the experimentand the paymentended. However, the group that wasnt paid kept solving the puzzles even after the experiment was over. They had found the puzzles intrinsically interesting. Deci argued that the group that had been paid to solve puzzles might have found the puzzles intrinsically interesting as well, but the extrinsic, monetary reward had reduced their intrinsic interest.

Source: Ken Bain,What the Best College Teachers Do, Harvard University Press, 2004, pages 32-33.

Source: Ken Bain,What the Best College Teachers Do, Harvard University Press, 2004, pages 40-41.

James Middleton, Joan Littlefield, and Rich Lehrer have proposed the following model of intrinsic academic motivation.

The challenge, then, is to provide teaching and learning activities that are both stimulating and offer students a degree of personal control.

Source: James A. Middleton, A Study of Intrinsic Motivation in the Mathematics Classroom: A Personal Constructs Approach,Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pages 255-257.

Following are some research-based strategies for motivating students to learn.

Sources:

When encouraging students to find your subject matter interesting, use cues to show students the appeal of the subject matter.

Source: Matt DeLong and Dale Winter,Learning to Teaching and Teaching to Learn Mathematics: Resources for Professional Development, Mathematical Association of America, 2002, page 168.

Read more here:
Motivating Students | Center for Teaching | Vanderbilt ...

This article is about the psychology theory. For the self-determination in politics, see Self-determination.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people's inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind choices people make without external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual's behavior is self-motivated and self-determined.[1][2][3]

In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing the intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and from growing understanding of the dominant role intrinsic motivation played in an individual's behavior[4] but it was not until the mid-1980s that SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT to different areas in social psychology has increased considerably since the 2000s.

Key studies that led to emergence of SDT included research on intrinsic motivation.[5] Intrinsic motivation refers to initiating an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an activity to obtain an external goal (extrinsic motivation). Different types of motivations have been described based on the degree they have been internalized. Internalization refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into personally endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioural regulations that were originally external.[6]

Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan later expanded on the early work differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and proposed three main intrinsic needs involved in self-determination.[7][8] According to Deci and Ryan, the three psychological needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for psychological health and well-being of an individual. These needs are said to be universal, innate and psychological and include the need for competence, autonomy, and psychological relatedness.[1]

SDT is centered on the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features, that it repeatedly shows effort, agency and commitment in their lives that the theory calls "inherent growth tendencies". People also have innate psychological needs that are the basis for self-motivation and personality integration.

SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function and growth:

These needs are seen as universal necessities that are innate, not learned (instinctive), and seen in humanity across time, gender and culture.[14]

Deci and Ryan claim that there are three essential elements of the theory:[15]

To actualise their inherent potential they need nurturing from the social environment.

If this happens there are positive consequences (e.g. well being and growth) but if not, there are negative consequences. So SDT emphasises humans' natural growth toward positive motivation; however, this is thwarted if their basic needs are not fulfilled.

SDT supports three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied to foster well-being and health. These needs can be universally applied. However, some may be more salient than others at certain times and are expressed differently based on time, culture, or experience.

SDT claims to give a different approach to motivation, considering what motivates a person at any given time as opposed to seeing motivation as a unitary concept. SDT makes distinctions between different types of motivation and the consequences of them.

Intrinsic motivation is the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities that SDT associates with cognitive and social development.

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET)[17] is a sub-theory of SDT that specifies factors explaining intrinsic motivation and variability with it and looks at how social and environmental factors help or hinder intrinsic motivations. CET focuses on the needs of competence and autonomy.

Claiming social context events like feedback on work or rewards lead to feelings of competence and so enhance intrinsic motivations. Deci[13] found positive feedback enhanced intrinsic motivations and negative feedback diminished it. Vallerand and Reid[18] went further and found that these effects were being mediated by perceived control.

Autonomy, however, must accompany competence for people to see their behaviours as self determined by intrinsic motivation. For this to happen there must be immediate contextual support for both needs or inner resources based on prior development support for both needs.[19]

CET and intrinsic motivation is also linked to relatedness through the hypothesis that intrinsic motivation flourishes if linked with a sense of security and relatedness. Grolnick and Ryan[20] found lower intrinsic motivation in children who believed their teachers to be uncaring or cold and so not fulfilling their relatedness needs.

Extrinsic motivation comes from external sources. Deci and Ryan[17] developed organismic integration theory (OIT), as a sub-theory of SDT, to explain the different ways extrinsically motivated behaviour is regulated.

OIT details the different forms of extrinsic motivation and the contexts in which they come about. It is the context of such motivation that concerns the SDT theory as these contexts affect whether the motivations are internalised and so integrated into the sense of self.

OIT describes four different types of extrinsic motivations that often vary in terms of their relative autonomy:

Extrinsically motivated behaviours can be integrated into self. OIT proposes internalization is more likely to occur when there is a sense of relatedness.

Ryan, Stiller and Lynch[23] found that children internalize school's extrinsic regulations when they feel secure and cared for by parents and teachers.

Internalisation of extrinsic motivation is also linked to competence. OIT suggests that feelings of competence in activities should facilitate internalisation of said actions.[24]

Autonomy is particularly important when trying to integrate its regulations into a person's sense of self. If an external context allows a person to integrate regulationthey must feel competent, related and autonomous. They must also understand the regulation in terms of their other goals to facilitate a sense of autonomy.[25] This was supported by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone[26] who found in laboratory settings if a person was given a meaningful reason for uninteresting behaviour along with support for their sense of autonomy and relatedness they internalized and integrated their behaviour.

White[16] and deCharms[12] proposed that the need for competence and autonomy is the basis of intrinsic motivation and behaviour. This is a link between people's basic needs and their motivations.

Deci[27] found that offering people extrinsic rewards for behaviour that is intrinsically motivated undermined the intrinsic motivation as they grow less interested in it. Initially intrinsically motivated behaviour becomes controlled by external rewards, which undermines their autonomy.

Further research by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper[28] found other external factors like deadlines, which restrict and control, also decrease intrinsic motivation.

Situations that give autonomy as opposed to taking it away also have a similar link to motivation. Studies looking at choice have found that increasing a participant's options and choices increases their intrinsic motivation.[29]

Deci[27] found that giving people unexpected positive feedback on a task increases people's intrinsic motivation to do it, meaning that this was because the positive feedback was fulfilling people's need for competence. In fact, giving positive feedback on a task served only to increase people's intrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation for the task.

Vallerand and Reid[18] found negative feedback has the opposite effect (i.e., decreasing intrinsic motivation by taking away from people's need for competence).

During a study on the relationship between infants' attachment styles; their exhibition of mastery-oriented behaviour and their effect during play, Frodi, Bridges and Grolnick[30] failed to find significant effects: "Perhaps somewhat surprising was the finding that the quality of attachment assessed at 12 months failed to significantly predict either mastery motivation, competence, or affect 8 months later, when other investigators have demonstrated an association between similar constructs ..." Yet they note that larger sample sizes could be able to uncover such effects: "A comparison of the secure/stable and the insecure/stable groups, however, did suggest that the secure/stable group was superior to the insecure/stable groups on all mastery-related measures. Obviously, replications of all the attachment-motivation relations are needed with different and larger samples."

SDT argues that needs are innate but can be developed in a social context. Some people develop stronger needs than others, creating individual differences. However, individual differences within the theory focus on concepts resulting from the degree to which needs have been satisfied or not satisfied.

Within SDT there are two general individual difference concepts, Causality Orientations and Life Goals.

Causality orientations are motivational orientations that refer to either the way people orient to an environment and regulate their behaviour because of this or the extent to which they are self determined in general across many settings. SDT created three orientations: autonomous, controlled and impersonal.

According to the theory people have some amount of each of the orientations, which can be used to make predictions on a persons psychological health and behavioural outcomes.

Life goals are long-term goals people use to guide their activities, and they fall into two categories:[31]

There have been several studies on this subject that chart intrinsic goals being associated with greater health, well being and performance.[32]

Deci[27] investigated the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation in two laboratory and one field experiment. Based on the results from earlier animal and human studies regarding intrinsic motivation the author explored two possibilities. In the first two experiments he looked at the effect of extrinsic rewards in terms of a decrease in intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Earlier studies showed contradictory or inconclusive findings regarding decrease in performance on a task following an external reward. The third experiment was based on findings of developmental learning theorists and looked at whether a different type of reward enhances intrinsic motivation to participate in an activity.

This experiment tested the hypothesis that if an individual is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity, introduction of an extrinsic reward decreases the degree of intrinsic motivation to perform the task.

Twenty-four undergraduate psychology students participated in the first laboratory experiment and were assigned to experimental (n = 12) and control group (n = 12). Each group participated in three sessions conducted on three different days. During the sessions, participants were engaged in working on a Soma cube puzzlewhich the experimenters assumed was an activity college students would be intrinsically motivated to do. The puzzle could be put together to form numerous different configurations. In each session, the participants were shown four different configurations drawn on a piece of paper and were asked to use the puzzle to reproduce the configurations while they were being timed.

The first and third session of the experimental condition were identical to control, but in the second session the participants in the experimental condition were given a dollar for completing each puzzle within time. During the middle of each session, the experimenter left the room for eight minutes and the participants were told that they were free to do whatever they wanted during that time, while the experimenter observed during that period. The amount of time spent working on the puzzle during the free choice period was used to measure motivation.

As Deci expected, when external reward was introduced during session two, the participants spent more time working on the puzzles during the free choice period in comparison to session 1 and when the external reward was removed in the third session, the time spent working on the puzzle dropped lower than the first session. All subjects reported finding the task interesting and enjoyable at the end of each session, providing evidence for the experimenter's assumption that the task was intrinsically motivating for the college students. The study showed some support of the experimenter's hypothesis and a trend towards decrease in intrinsic motivation was seen after money was provided to the participants as external reward.

The second experiment was a field experiment, similar to laboratory Experiment I, but was conducted in a natural setting.

Eight student workers were observed at a college biweekly newspaper. Four of the students served as a control group and worked on Friday. The experimental group worked on Tuesdays.

The control and experimental group students were not aware that they were being observed. The 10-week observation was divided into three time periods. The task in this study required the students to write headlines for the newspaper.

During "Time 2", the students in the experimental group were given 50 cents for each headline they wrote. At the end of Time 2, they were told that in the future the newspaper cannot pay them 50 cent for each headline anymore as the newspaper ran out of the money allocated for that and they were not paid for the headlines during Time 3.

The speed of task completion (headlines) was used as a measure of motivation in this experiment. Absences were used as a measure of attitudes.

To assess the stability of the observed effect, the experimenter observed the students again (Time 4) for two weeks. There was a gap of five weeks between Time 3 and Time 4. Due to absences and change in assignment etc., motivation data was not available for all students. The results of this experiment were similar to Experiment I and monetary reward was found to decrease the intrinsic motivation of the students, supporting Deci's hypothesis.

Experiment III was also conducted in the laboratory and was identical to Experiment I in all respects except for the kind of external reward provided to the students in experimental condition during Session 2.

In this experiment, verbal praise was used as an extrinsic reward.

The experimenter hypothesized that a different type of rewardi.e., social approval in the form of verbal reinforcement and positive feedback for performing the task that a person is intrinsically motivated to performenhances the degree of external motivation, even after the extrinsic reward is removed.

The results of the experiment III confirmed the hypothesis and the students' performance increased significantly during the third session in comparison to session one, showing that verbal praise and positive feedback enhances performance in tasks that a person is initially intrinsically motivated to perform. This provides evidence that verbal praise as external reward increases intrinsic motivation.

The author explained differences between the two types of external rewards as having different effects on intrinsic motivation. When a person is intrinsically motivated to perform a task and money is introduced to work on the task, the individual cognitively re-evaluates the importance of the task and the intrinsic motivation to perform the task (because the individual finds it interesting) shifts to extrinsic motivation and the primary focus changes from enjoying the task to gaining financial reward. However, when verbal praise is provided in a similar situation increases intrinsic motivation as it is not evaluated to be controlled by external factors and the person sees the task as an enjoyable task that is performed autonomously. The increase in intrinsic motivation is explained by positive reinforcement and an increase in perceived locus of control to perform the task.

Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell[33] conducted a similar study to evaluate Deci's hypothesis regarding the role of extrinsic rewards on decreasing intrinsic motivation.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. A chess-problem task was used in this study. Data was collected in two sessions.

Participants were asked to complete a background questionnaire that included questions on the amount of time the participant played chess during the week, the number of years that the participant has been playing chess for, amount of enjoyment the participant gets from playing the game, etc.

The participants in both groups were then told that the experimenter needed to enter the information in the computer and for the next 10 minutes the participant were free to do whatever they liked.

The experimenter left the room for 10 minutes. The room had similar chess-problem tasks on the table, some magazines as well as coffee was made available for the participants if they chose to have it.

The time spent on the chess-problem task was observed through a one way mirror by the experimenter during the 10 minutes break and was used as a measure of intrinsic motivation. After the experimenter returned, the experimental group was told that there was a monetary reward for the participant who could work on the most chess problems in the given time and that the reward is for this session only and would not be offered during the next session. The control group was not offered a monetary reward.

The second session was the same for the two groups:

After a filler task, the experimenter left the room for 10 minutes and the time participants spent on the chess-problem task was observed. The experimental group was reminded that there was no reward for the task this time.

After both sessions the participants were required to respond to questionnaires evaluating the task, i.e. to what degree did they find the task interesting. Both groups reported that they found the task interesting.

The results of the study showed that the experimental group showed a significant decrease in time spent on the chess-problem task during the 10-minute free time from session 1 to session 2 in comparison to the group that was not paid, thus confirming the hypothesis presented by Deci that contingent monetary reward for an activity decreases the intrinsic motivation to perform that activity. Other studies were conducted around this time focusing on other types of rewards as well as other external factors that play a role in decreasing intrinsic motivation.[34][35]

Chua and Koestner[36] explored the consequences of activities done in solitude.

They argued that relation of solitary activities to feelings of loneliness and life satisfaction depends on whether individuals feel autonomous rather than controlled about spending time alone.

Participants (N = 108) reported the percentage of waking time they spent in solitude per day and completed measures of attachment styles, motivation for solitary activities, loneliness, and well-being. The results suggest that relative autonomy is important regardless of one's decision to act or not to act. The results also emphasize the importance of autonomous social behavior.

Principles of SDT have been applied in many domains of life, e.g., job demands;[37] parenting;[38] teaching;[39] and health.[40] Besides the domains mentioned above, self-determination theory research has been widely applied to the field of sports.[41]

Murcia, Roman, Galindo, Alonso and Gonzalez-Cutre[42] looked at the influence of peers on enjoyment in exercise. Specifically, the researchers looked at the effect of motivational climate generated by peers on exercisers by analyzing data collected through questionnaires and rating scales. The assessment included evaluation of motivational climate, basic psychological needs satisfaction, levels of self-determination and self-regulation (amotivation, external, introjected, identified and intrinsic regulation) and also the assessment of the level of satisfaction and enjoyment in exercising.

Data analysis revealed that when peers are supportive and there is an emphasis on cooperation, effort, and personal improvement, the climate influences variables like basic psychological needs, motivation and enjoyment. The task climate positively predicted the three basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness) and so positively predicted self-determined motivation. Task climate and the resulting self-determination were also found to positively influence level of enjoyment the exercisers experienced during the activity.

Awareness has always been associated with autonomous functioning; however, it was only recently that the SDT researchers incorporated the idea of mindfulness and its relationship with autonomous functioning and emotional wellbeing in their research.

Brown and Ryan[43] conducted a series of five experiments to study mindfulness: They defined mindfulness as open, undivided attention to what is happening within as well as around oneself.

From their experiments, the authors concluded that when individuals act mindfully, their actions are consistent with their values and interest. Also, there is a possibility that being autonomous and performing an action because it is enjoyable to oneself increases mindful attention to one's actions.

Another area of interest for SDT researchers is the relationship between subjective vitality and self-regulation. Ryan and Deci[44] define vitality as energy available to the self, either directly or indirectly, from basic psychological needs. This energy allows individuals to act autonomously.

Many theorists have posited that self-regulation depletes energy but SDT researchers have proposed and demonstrated that only controlled regulation depletes energy, autonomous regulation can actually be vitalizing.[45]

A recent study by Hyungshim Jang[46] in which the capacity of two different theoretical models of motivation were used to explain why an externally provided rationale for doing a particular assignment often helps in a student's motivation, engagement, and learning during relatively uninteresting learning activities.

Undergraduate students (N = 136; 108 women, 28 men) worked on a relatively uninteresting short lesson after either receiving or not receiving a rationale. Students who received the rationale showed greater interest, work ethic, and determination.

Structural equation modeling was used to test three alternative explanatory models to understand why the rationale produced such benefits:

The data fit all three models; but only the model based on self-determination theory helped students to engage and learn. Findings show the role that externally provided rationales can play in helping students generate the motivation they need to engage in and learn from uninteresting, but personally important, material.[46]

The importance of these findings to those in the field of education is that when teachers try to find ways to promote student's motivation during relatively uninteresting learning activities, they can successfully do so by promoting the value of the task. One way teachers can help students value what they may deem "uninteresting" is by providing a rationale that identifies the lesson's otherwise hidden value, helps students understand why the lesson is genuinely worth their effort, and communicates why the lesson can be expected to be useful to them.[46]

An example of SDT and education are Sudbury Model schools where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. In these schools, students of all ages determine what they do, as well as when, how, and where they do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated. The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility. In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises. The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy. Sudbury schools do not perform and do not offer evaluations, assessments, or recommendations, asserting that they do not rate people, and that school is not a judge; comparing students to each other, or to some standard that has been set is for them a violation of the student's right to privacy and to self-determination. Students decide for themselves how to measure their progress as self-starting learners as a process of self-evaluation: real lifelong learning and the proper educational evaluation for the 21st century, they adduce.[47]

According to self-determination theory,[48] individuals who attribute their actions to external circumstances rather than internal mechanisms are far more likely to succumb to peer pressure. In contrast, individuals who consider themselves autonomous tend to be initiators of actions rather than followers. Research examining the relationship between self-determination theory and alcohol use among college students has indicated that individuals with the former criteria for decision making are associated with greater alcohol consumption and drinking as a function of social pressure. For instance, in a study conducted by Knee and Neighbors,[49] external factors in the individuals who claim to not be motivated by internal factors were found to be associated with drinking for extrinsic reasons, and with stronger perceptions of peer pressure, which in turn was related to heavier alcohol use. Given the evidence suggesting a positive association between an outward motivation and drinking, and the potential role of perceived social influence in this association, understanding the precise nature of this relationship seems important. Further, it may be hypothesized that the relationship between self-determination and drinking may be mediated to some extent by the perceived approval of others.[50]

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular approach to positive behavioral change. Used initially in the area of addiction (Miller & Rollnick, 2002),[51] it is now used for a wider range of issues. It is a client-centered method that doesn't persuade or coerce patients to change and instead attempts to explore and resolve their ambivalent feelings, which allows them to choose themselves whether to change or not.

Markland, Ryan, Tobin, and Rollnick[52] believe that SDT provides a framework behind how and the reasons why MI works. They believe that MI provides an autonomy-supportive atmosphere, which allows clients to find their own source of motivation and achieve their own success (in terms of overcoming addiction). Patients randomly assigned to an MI treatment group found the setting to be more autonomy-supportive than those in a regular support group.

Several studies explored the link between self-determination theory and environmental behaviors to determine the role of intrinsic motivation for environmental behavior performance and to account for the lack of success of current intervention strategies.[54]

Environmental attitudes and knowledge are not good predictors of behavior. Self-determination theory suggests that motivation can predict behavior performance. Pelletier et al. (1998) constructed a scale of motivation for environmental behavior, which consists of 4x6 statements (4 statements for each type of motivation on the SDT motivation scale: intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, external, and amotivation) responding to a question 'Why are you doing things for the environment?'. Each item is scored on a 1-7 Likert scale.[55] Utilizing MTES, Villacorta (2003) demonstrates a correlation between environmental concerns and intrinsic motivations together with peer and parental support; further, intrinsically motivated behaviors tend to persist longer.[56]

Pelletier et al. (1999) shows that four personal beliefs, helplessness, strategy, capacity, and effort, lead to greater amotivation, while self-determination has an inverse relationship with amotivation. The Amotivation toward the Environment Scale measures the four reasons for amotivation by answering a question 'Why are you not doing things for the environment?'. The participants rank 16 total statements (four in each category of amotivation) on a 1-7 Likert scale.[57]

Intervention strategies have to be effective in bridging the gap between attitudes and behaviors. Monetary incentives, persuasive communication, and convenience are often successful in the short term, but when the intervention is removed, behavior is discontinued. In the long run, such intervention strategies are therefore expensive and difficult to maintain.[54]

Self-determination theory explains that environmental behavior that is not motivated intrinsically is not persistent. On the other hand, when self-determination is high, behavior is more likely to occur repeatedly. The importance of intrinsic motivation is particularly apparent with more difficult behaviors. While they are less likely to be performed in general, people with high internal motivation are more likely to perform them more frequently than people with low intrinsic motivation. 5 Subjects scoring high on intrinsic motivation and supporting ecological well-being also reported a high level of happiness.[58]

According to Osbaldiston and Sheldon (2003), autonomy perceived by an individual leads to an increased frequency of environmental behavior performance. In their study, 162 university students chose an environmental goal and performed it for a week. Perceived autonomy, success in performing chosen behavior, and their future intention to continue were measured. The results suggested that people with higher degree of self-perceived autonomy successfully perform behaviors and are more likely to do so in the long term.[59]

Based on the connection between self-determination theory and environmental behaviors, Pelletier et al. suggest that successful intervention should emphasize self-determined motivation for performing environmental behaviors.[55]

The rest is here:
Self-determination theory - Wikipedia

"Motivation" is a song performed by American recording artist Kelly Rowland, from her third studio album Here I Am (2011). The song was written by Jim Jonsin, Rico Love, Daniel Morris and Lil Wayne, with Jonsin producing the song and Lil Wayne having featured vocals. The R&B slow-jam serves as the lead single from Here I Am and was released from April 8, 2011. Upon release, "Motivation" received favorable reviews from critics generally praising the sexiness of the song. Official remixes were produced for the song, including an dubstep-inspired electronic mix by Diplo and a rap remix by Busta Rhymes, Trey Songz and Fabolous.

In the United States, the song has peaked at number one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart where it stayed seven weeks in a row, and number seventeen on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Rowland's second US top 20 hit (fourth top 30 overall) and her second highest performing single to date as a solo artist, behind "Dilemma". It was certified double platinum by the RIAA in May 2013.

An accompanying music video was directed by Sarah Chatfield, the director behind Rowland's previous video "Forever and a Day" (2010). It follows a number of sultry scenes where Rowland dances seductively amongst partially dressed dancers in a dimly-lit warehouse, with the entire video tinged in blue light. Rowland performed the song for the first time with Trey Songz at the 2011 BET Awards."Motivation" was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration at the 54th Grammy Awards.

Here I Am was originally scheduled for release in 2010, but was pushed back numerous times. Initially the dance-influenced "Commander" served as the album's lead single for international territories while two separate singles were serviced in the United States. "Rose Colored Glasses" for the pop format and "Grown Woman" for the urban format.[1][2] Rowland decided in September 2010 to re-enter the recording studios to work on new material for the album.[3] This, coupled with creative issues such as naming the album, led to multiple pushbacks. "Motivation" was announced as the title for the album's new lead single during New York Fashion Week.[4] It debuted online via Rap-Up magazine's website on March 2, 2011.[5]

Speaking of how the record came about, Rowland said "Motivation came about when I was in the studio with [producers] Jim Jonsin and Rico Love, and we kind of were just vibing. I told Rico I wanted something really sexy ... and he came up with 'Motivation' along with Jim. It turned into this amazing record... I played ['Motivation' for Lil Wayne] and he got on it, and it was just as simple as that."[6] Along with the single announcement, Rap-Up said fans could expect the video and a remix produced by Diplo to premiere in April 2011.[5] However, the electronic remix, produced by Diplo, premiered via Rap-Up on March 8, 2011.[7]

A 23-second sample of "Motivation", backed by slow R&B beats. The lyrics of the song, described as "racy" sees Rowland asking her partner to move his hands over her body.

"Motivation" is a R&B slow jam song written by Richard Butler (Rico Love), Jim Jonsin, Dwayne Carter and Danny Morris.[5][8][9] The racy lyrics center around Rowland asking her man to use his hands all over her body, and are accompanied by a "synth-saturated beat" produced by Jonsin.[5] In terms of instruments, "Motivation" uses sparse keyboard notes, programmed beats and pulsing synths in the chorus.[10] Wayne adds a rap verse complementing Rowland's seductive suggestions, using the kitchen and a car as metaphors for sex.[5][10] According to Scott Shetler from AOL Music, Rowland uses the lyrics to promise "to be her lover's motivation."[10] Rowland called the record a mixture between dance and mash-up.[4] When asked by MTV what Rowland thought of the song, she said,"It has that personality and characteristic to it that I don't think anybody can deny. That's why when Wayne dropped that insane verse on there ... I was like, 'You really brought that up even more.' He went into the studio and just did it. I don't think it takes much for Wayne to think. He just does it. He's so admirable."[6]

Ryan Brockington, from the New York Post, was amongst the first to review "Motivation." In his review, he said "The single is a big leap from the dance club synth pop that Kelly has been releasing the past year and it seems like she might be trying to shimmy her way back into the hip-hop world by teaming up with the Midas touch vocals of Lil Wayne."[11] Both Rap-Up and AOL Music's Scott Shetler called the song "sexy."[5][10] Becky Bain from Idolator disliked the song for not being memorable. The short review was summed up with the closing phrase, "shes going to need another hit to help promote her album when it finally is ready to drop."[8] Wesley Case from The Baltimore Sun complemented the song's sexy quality. "If this isn't the year's hands-down sexiest song thus far, it has to be in the discussion. Rowland, whose sultry voice could get a priest hot, weaving in and out of the minimal beat, and setting the table for Lil Wayne's stuttering, after-hours guest-verse. Stack the pieces together and it's an understated knockout that gets sexier with each spin."[12] Billboard ranked it number five on their "Critics' Picks: 20 Best Songs of 2011"[13]

"Motivation" was nominated for two awards at the 2011 Soul Train Music Awards including Best Dance Performance and Song of the Year.It won the award for Song of the Year and was also nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration at the 54th Grammy Awards, which was held on February 12, 2012.

Despite not being released for digital download until April 13, 2011, "Motivation" made its US chart debuted on April 2, debuting at number fifty-five on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.[14][15] In the weeks following it continued to rise thanks to urban airplay, eventually reaching number one in its tenth week on the chart, chart dated May 23, 2011.[16] "Motivation" is Rowland's first solo number one as lead artist on a US Billboard composite chart (one combining airplay and sales), although she previously peaked at number one with Nelly on his 2002 single "Dilemma."[17] It stayed at the top spot of the chart for six more weeks. In the same week that "Motivation" hit number one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, Lil Wayne, who is featured on the single, had a total of twelve songs on the chart.[17]

Following its release, "Motivation" debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at number fifty-five, Rowland's highest Hot 100 debut as a solo artist.[18] It reached number seventeen, Rowland's highest Hot 100 peak as a solo artist, and best chart position since "Dilemma" (by Nelly featuring Kelly Rowland 2002), which reached number one.[17] Additionally, it is the first single from Rowland to chart on the Hot 100 since her 2009 feature on David Guetta's "When Love Takes Over", which reached number seventy-six.[17] The previous two lead singles, "Grown Woman" (2010) and "Rose Colored Glasses" (2010), from Here I Am, failed to enter the Hot 100, though the latter peaked at number fifty-one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. The producer of "Motivation", Jim Jonsin, said he was proud and confident of the song's success. "Im really happy that things are going well for her on this record. A real concern for us was to get that smash for her... Shes a friend of ours as well, so to see her win is huge."[19]

The music video for "Motivation" was directed by Sarah Chatfield, at the end of March 2011.[20] Frank Gatson served as the video's chroegrapher.[6] Speaking during Roberto Cavalli's fashion show, Rowland said she was on the look out for "womanly, sexy designs" for a "feminine sexy video."[4] She elaborated on the development of the video during an interview when MTV News' Jocelyn Vena. She told Vena, "We came up with the energy, and with Frank [Gatson] and I don't know how he sees something, but he got it... I'm so thankful I have a great team that's thinking 10 steps ahead of me. With Sarah she understood; she got the concept. It was great the way everything came together."[6] The video made its world premiere on BET's 106 & Park on April 4, 2011.[21]

The video opens in a blue hue lit warehouse, with Rowland standing in the passageway before it cuts to her walking through the building checking out the ladies and men mingling. Rowland can then be seen in a purple swim suit & coat,doing various sexual choreographed routines with her many half dressed male backup dancers. The clip then shows Lil wayne in his own scene rapping his verse to the song. He can then be seen leaning against a wall and standing on a bed with the lights flashing while Rowland is simultaneously being entertained by a male dancer as she sits upon a chair. The video then continues with the crowd entwining with each other; full make out sections between females and their male counterparts, as well as partially dressed males feeling on each other's bodies, while the females also interact with each other. After more dancing from Rowland and her dancers, the video then ends with Rowland singing her final lines, surrounded by the sexually charged crowd. Jocelyn Vena of MTV commented that the video "plays to the song's sexy themes."[6]

"Motivation" has been remixed several times, mainly by Rowland's fellow R&B contemporaries who have each put their own angle on the song. The first remix, the song's official remix, was helmed by Alternative electronic music producer, Diplo. It replaces some of the song's original instruments with electronic ones, as well as adding "rapid hi-hats"[7] Diplo also modifies Rowland's vocals, by "chopping and reconfiguring" them "over the dubstep-inspired instrumental."[7] A So So Def remix of the song features female American rapper Da Brat. The unofficial remix, features a new introduction from Da Brat, and was released online to Rap-Up.[19] R&B singers The-Dream and Jeremih also made remixes of the song, adding their own verses and "male perspective" to compliment Rowland and Lil Wayne's verses.Tyga also released a remix for his Mixtape "Well Done 2" entitled "Pussy Talkin'.[22] In May 2011, R. Kelly joined the list of singers to create their own remix for "Motivation". In his version, R. Kelly adds additional verses and references his own songs such as "Pregnant".[23] R. Kelly's remix of the song was praised by Rowland. Using her official Twitter account, Rowland said, "R. Kelly Motivation Remix is CRAAAZZZZZY!!!"[24] R&B singer Mario also added his vocals to a remix of the song.[25] On June 6, 2011, a second official remix for the song was uploaded. It replaces Lil Wayne with new verses from rappers Busta Rhymes, Trey Songz and Fabolous.[26] Rhymes has a rapid-fire "bedroom"-themed verse, while Songz sings in his falsetto and Fabolous' verse is cut short by the re-introduction of Rowland's vocals.[27] A third officially produced remix, the "Rebel Rock Remix," features on the deluxe edition of Here I Am.[28]

On June 26, 2011, Rowland took to the stage of the 2011 BET Awards to perform "Motivation" for the first time.[29] Hollywood News reported that according to social networking site Twitter, Rowland's performance of the song was the most anticipated of the evening.[30] Appearing in the middle of Trey Songz performance of "Love Faces," Rowland ascended on stage where she was joined on stage by several shirtless male dancers.[31] The performance was met with a positive reception from industry critics and fellow music entertainers, most of whom noted it as a highlight of the ceremony. Ed Masley from The Arizona Republic said that Rowland's performance was "the night's most soulful vocal [performance]."[31] Roger Catlin from TV critic website Courant.com also lauded Rowland with praising, stating that Rowland offered "a live performance with Trey Songz trumping that of her more famous "sister" from Destiny's Child, Beyonc."[32] The Los Angeles Times' Gerrick D. Kennedy praised Rowland's sex appeal, noting that her "steamy performance sent tongues wagging" and was widely anticipated thanks to the serial delays with her album Here I Am (2011).[33] Finally, MTV Rob Markman pointed out that following her performance "#kelly" began trending on Twitter. Additionally Markman said "[Rowland] received one of the loudest ovations of the night."[34]

Recording[37]

Personnel[37]

Read the original here:
Motivation (Kelly Rowland song) - Wikipedia

Motivation is defined as the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. Motivation is what causes you to act, whether it is getting a glass of water to reduce thirst or reading a book to gain knowledge.

Motivation involves the biological, emotional, social, and cognitive forces that activate behavior. In everyday usage, the term motivation is frequently used to describe why a person does something.

For example, you might say that a student is so motivated to get into a clinical psychology program that she spends every night studying.

"The term motivation refers to factors that activate, direct, and sustain goal-directed behavior... Motives are the 'whys' of behaviorthe needs or wants that drive behavior and explain what we do. We don't actually observe a motive; rather, we infer that one exists based on the behavior we observe."(Nevid, 2013)

What exactly lies behind the motivations for why we act? Psychologists have proposed different theories of motivation, including drive theory, instinct theory, and humanistic theory. The reality is that there are many different forces that guide and direct our motivations.

Anyone who has ever had a goal (like wanting to lose 20 pounds or run a marathon) probably immediately realizes that simply having the desire to accomplish something is not enough.

Achieving such a goal requires the ability to persist through obstacles and endurance to keep going in spite of difficulties.

There are three major components to motivation: activation, persistence, and intensity.

What are the things that actually motivate us to act? Psychologists have proposed different theories to explain motivation:

Different types of motivation are frequently described as being either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic motivations are those that arise from outside of the individual and often involve rewards such as trophies, money, social recognition, or praise. Intrinsic motivations are those that arise from within the individual, such as doing a complicated crossword puzzle purely for the personal gratification of solving a problem.

Understanding motivation is important in many areas of life, from parenting to the workplace. You may want to set the best goals and establish the right reward systems to motivate others as well as toincrease your own motivation. Knowledge of motivating factors and manipulating them is used in marketing and other aspects of industrial psychology. It's an area where there are many myths and everyone can benefit from knowing what works and what doesn't.

Source:

Nevid JS. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2013.

Read the rest here:
Motivation: Psychological Factors That Guide Behavior