Talk:Motivation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

this article desperately needs to be rewritten in a clear, concise, cogent style -- as it stands now, it is difficult to wade through -- and there is really no need for that, as the subject matter is not all that complex
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Motivation as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Endless problems here!

Hi there! I have several issues with this entry, with the exceptions of my own texts. 1. Why was my introductory text removed? As it is now, I'm very displeased with the change. Authority bias disclaimer. I teach psychology at the university. I've written a thesis on motivation. I have an ongoing research project on motivation. By these notions, I should have some kind of authority here, yes? When I teach, my students read text books and Internet sources. They repeatedly and consistently confuse motivation with emotion and personality. Therefore, I wish that my initial text that explains the differences between these concepts should be reinstated. Furthermore, the Geen (1995) definition is not a simple opinion - it's the most accepted definition in the research community. As written now, it appears that this Geen fellow just has an opinion, whereas the initial text is something else, right?

2. There is a major difference between research perspectives on motivation. If you have a textbook on management, organizational psychology, leadership or even economy, you will find that the definitions and theories in there will not mesh very well with theories in educational psychology. There are different paradigms and the criticism from one to the other is very harsh, particularly researchers who feel that empirical evidence is critical for progress in the field such as educational psychologists (who often try to motivate pupils in school contexts). Other researchers, or philosophers, (who writes about working contexts) feel that writing about what they think about people's or employees' intentions, motives and motivation is interesting and useful. The former group tend to dismiss the latter's texts and theories as bullshit. This is also evident in these forums. Just check out the entry on Maslow. Therefore, I suggest breaking up this entry into these two perspectives. If we do not break it up more cleverly, this entry will very likely confuse readers. I myself am quite sceptical, and I strongly dislike the fact that some very poor or heavily criticized theories are put alongside theories with much better (or any) scientific standing. For the unskilled layman, this gives the impression that they are of equal value within the scientific community, which is simply not true.

How about this? "Motivation is studied in various academic and corporal fields, roughly, these fields can be categorized into... A. Educational psychology B. Animal psychology C. Organizational psychology D. Economic theories E. Philosophical ideas F. Whatever more someone else might come up with

3. I hope, for dear science, that Freud's ideas on subconscious motivation will not be included here. Just because a famous person say something does not make it true. I suggest that anyone who wishes to write about that, there will be plenty of space under the Freud as person entry. However, using Bargh's preconscious motivation or intention is okay with me. Clebo (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Clebo Clebo (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your views are welcome because we really need someone with expertise to work on this article. Motivation is primarily a branch of psychology and therefore psychological theories and research evidence should form the core of the article. Rather than split the article now, I suggest that you just go ahead and develop high quality content. Non-scientific perspectives on motivation (with proper citations) could be accommodated in separate sections until the article becomes too large, at which time we could think about how to split it or take some other action. Nesbit (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SHOUTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

I suggest changing these capital letters (NOTE: THAT HERZBERG, MAYO, MASLOW ETC... ARE MOTIVATION THEORIES HOWEVER MCGREGOR IS A MOTIVATION OF LEADERSHIP) to quieter letters, the sentence still needs editing, integrating it into the body would be even better. Perhaps changing the word 'nicer' to a more specific 'tastier' when referring to food might be nicer an improvement. More References and citations of sources are needed.
- Human relations model -

Elton Mayo found out that the social contacts a worker has at the workplace are very important and that boredom and repetitiveness of tasks lead to reduced motivation. Mayo believed that workers could be motivated by acknowledging their social needs and making them feel important. As a result, employees were given freedom to make decisions on the job and greater attention was paid to informal work groups. Mayo named the model the Hawthorne effect. The problem with his model is undue reliance on social contacts at work situations for motivating employees.[1]"" Its noted as an effect , then criticised for not being a complete model, does it claim to be a complete model? --203.153.253.16 23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing further text

I was wondering if someone qualified on the subject would extend the article a little on the Self-Control subject, namely that intrinsic motivations do not serve as a cause of success, instead as the cause of the individual's willingness to "excercise" him/herself, leading to success in a given field or hobby. As far as I imagine(humor me here), intrinsic motivation is in a little part, an affinity to face prolonged "hardship", which is self-control(in this case), a form of self-discipline. Anyone can verify this thought, so that I won't put in original research?

[edit] Questionable text

From the main text :

"This approach has been criticised THAT David Mcclelland dehumanized workers " ... not clear at all !!!!?????

This text appears to me to be plagiarized, so I am removing it from the main article:

At the next level are motivations that have an obvious biological basis but are not required for the immediate survival of the organism. These include the powerful motivations for sex, parenting and aggression: again, the physiological bases of these are similar in humans and other animals, but the social complexities are greater in humans (or perhaps we just understand them better in our own species). In these areas insights from behavioral ecology and sociobiology have offered new analyses of both animal and human behaviour in the last decades of the twentieth century, though the extension of sociobiological analyses to humans remains highly controversial. Perhaps similar, but perhaps at a rather different level, is the motivation for new stimulation - variously called exploration, curiosity, or arousal-seeking. A crucial issue in the analysis of such motivations is whether they have a homeostatic component, so that they build up over time if not discharged; this idea was a key component of early twentieth century analyses of sex and aggression by, for example, Freud and Konrad Lorenz, and is a feature of much popular psychology of motivation. The biological analyses of recent decades, however, imply that such motivations are situational, arising when they are (or seem to be) needed to ensure an animal's fitness, and subsiding without consequences when the occasion for them passes.

If whoever posted this can provide a reference, we can put it back. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions and edits

Is this page directed at management, as the motivation in the workforce, or of motivation in general??

shouldn't there be something about lack of motivation and depression?

I removed from the first paragraph the following unclear sentence contributed by an anonymous IP:

"Classifications of motivations must be based upon goals rather than upon instigating drives or motivated behavior."

It appears to contradict the gist of the first paragraph, but it's not really clear exactly what it is saying. The literature on motivation talks about drives and behaviour much more than about goals - so it would be a great oversight to exclude talk about goals. Anyone want to clarify? Mercurius 02:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, although I think that the lead should say something about goals. The problem with this article is that it needs an editing team who actually know something about the biology, psychology and applications of motivational theory, and can provide referenced text. I can help with the educational theories, but not much else.

Nesbit 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Also well-acquainted with the educational theories, but they only represent a splinter-group within the general psychological category of 'motivation'. I have put some effort in the the education-related aspects of motivation on some of the related pages like motivation theories, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and Goal Theory. That about exhausts my knowledge on the subject... Mercurius 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


"Biological psychology of drives Drive theory There are a 'number' of drive theories. " This doesn't seem quite right. I would edit it myself but I really don't know what it's supposed to say.

[edit] Structure of Article

I added a new, cleaner definition that is used in motivational psychology. I have some serious issues with some parts of the article. Some theories shouldn't be here because they are of such poor scientific power, and there are some that is missing. Some theories are attributed to the wrong scientist, achievement theory is usually referred as Atkinson's theory. This is not too bad though, motivational psychology is a real mess, even for scientists in the field as myself. Clebo 14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm beginning to regret that I ever chose to do anything about this entry. The entire article is messy structurally. There are perspectives, applications, features and theories side-by-side without any structure. I suggest the following headings; General definition, biological theories, cognitive theories and social theories. Applications are easily extracted from each perspective. Clebo 15:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will insert this here to agree with Clebo that the article looks like a box of stuff in search of a structure, which is needed for others to pitch in on the writing. For comparison, the article on Cognition seems pretty much limited to a current academic treatment. Would the following be a friendly amendment to Clebo's suggested outline above? General definition; history of the idea (compact, maybe a way to deal briefly with some of the stuff in the box); current conceptions (with Clebo's suggested trio of biological, cognitive, and social theories); and uses (as those tend to vary in lingo, context, import, etc.). Definition and history for the general user, academically current in the middle, with uses for people who come to the page with that in mind. The following comment and table of contents were entered by Clebo with the message above Tombird 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Building on your idea, how about this simple top-level structure as a starting point?
  • Lead
  • History of the concept
  • Biological theories
  • Cognitive theories
  • Social theories
  • Applications
Also, I suggest that we fairly ruthlessly move much of the older, less academic and non-verified material into an archive section on this page. Or is there a better way to archive it?
Nesbit 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

I have proposed Merging intrinsic motivation into this article. My reasoning is available at Talk:Intrinsic_motivation. --Gellender 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have any problem with this idea. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Is someone else willing to merge this if there continues to be no opposition? --Gellender 07:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I could try it, if I have the time. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory quote

I find the quote at the beginning of this article to be somewhat unclear by way of the common conceptualisation of what motivation means. I think it would be more beneficial to define motiviation in terms of how it occurs. Something along the lines of "Motivation can be understood as a set of forces, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that lead people to behave in a particular way" What do people think? Martinq22 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not a direct quote but its paraphrased from chapter 6 of Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which quote? I was referring to your proposed change. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Motivation can be understood as a set of forces, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that lead people to behave in a particular way. What do you think of that as the intro to the article? Martinq22 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I asked above, where are you getting this definition? Do you have a source for what you just said in the latter paragraph? — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 10:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this definition is not adequate. It supports one viewpoint of motivation (that it is extrinsic/intrinsic). Some people do not share this view. For example, some think that motivation is driven by goals. (Of course, you can fit that into the extrinsic/intrinsic viewpoint, but that's beside the point.) — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
free stuff please

Please add ARCS motivational theory

I quoted Geen for the definition of motivation. Sometimes, the third feature is replaced by the "unwillingness to cease" an activity. The suggested new definition is, to me, significantly weaker, as it contains less information. For instance, "can be understood" is a strange phrase. Furthermore, what does a set of forces mean? In defense of Geen's definition, it explains what part of behavior motivational psychology studies; how behavior starts and maintains, and how intense it is. To me, this is more information than "lead people to behave in a particular way. Clebo —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:53:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Base motive

I am proposing that Base motive be merged into this article, it seems to me that it does not have any unique information that is not contained in this article. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about psychology can check and see if I am mistaken.--HarryHenryGebel 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. "Base motive" is not particularly useful as a stand-alone entry. --Jcbutler 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merge although there isn't really any content of note in the standalone 'Base motive' article. The assertion that 'base motives are scientifically proven' is not referenced nd a quick interent search only finds references to the phrase as used in German Criminal Code (and there to distinguish between murder and manslaughter). The basic idea behind the current article (if I've understood it correctly) is that there is an element of intrinsic compulsion involved when behviour is influenced by 'base motives. It's not easy to see how to fit it into the Motivation article except possibly under Social and self regulation. rgds, ||:) johnmark† 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Works better as part of Motivation. CloudNine 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I propose that the base motive article as it is be deleted. The actual concept (e.g., "ulterior motive" or "hidden agenda") is only tangentially concerned with the psychology of motivation, and is concerned with crime or deception. "Base" can mean morally low as well as fundamental, and motive can mean a high-level cognate such as "purpose".Vendrov 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think that Vendrov's idea is good. Motive is not the same thing as motivation. Motive refers much more to intention than behavior. Clebo 17:45, 19 August 2007.

[edit] Cren

The section on punishment mentions "cren":

Punishment, when referred in general, is an unfavorable condition introduced into the environment to eliminate undesirable behavior. This is used as one of the measures of Behavior Modification. Action resulting in punishment will demotivate repetition of action. Also the matter of cren is evident.

At one point or another, we have all been either a leader or a follower. While both roles are equally important, a leader plays an instrumental role in providing direction for his/her followers. A good way to identify an effective leader is to see if his/her followers are able to support and accomplish what their leader is asking of their team. In order to be a great leader, one must possess various qualities that will attract followers. The following qualities are just of few of the many qualities that are vital for effective leadership. Charisma - A notable charismatic leader was Martin Luther King, Jr. Decades after his death, King is still honored today for his passionate movement towards equality. His most famous speech, “I have a dream,” still impacts a current generation as his powerful words grace the majority of history textbooks all over America. His speech radiates personality because of his expressive words in his fight against inequality. Like King’s speech, charismatic leaders have the gift to touch people through their choice of words. Charismatic leaders are alluring, charming and can encourage followers to support a grand vision or idea. Positive Attitude - A leader who possesses a positive attitude will influence his/her followers to carry that same attitude. An example of a positive leader could be a parent or teacher. Mothers, fathers, or elementary teachers appear and are viewed as role models to the young children they are teaching and nurturing. These role models are the first leaders they encounter in life. Children become very dependent of leaders because they are their vehicles to the outside world and provide much needed help and assistance. If a parent is nurturing and loving to their child, they will thrive under this encouragement... If a school teacher provides a positive learning experience to the child, they will succeed and that success will become contagious... In any circumstance, a leader’s positive attitude will have greater impact and influence on their followers. Motivation - In an athletic world, a motivating leader could be a coach, trainer or even a fellow teammate. While the “talent” of players is a good determinant of a winning team, their coach is also an important factor. If a coach can not produce a winning team, his job is at stake. A coach’s motivation involves infusing his players with high standards, and setting challenging but attainable goals as they perform well. Thus, his/her ability to motivate his players will enhance their performances. Motivation also correlates with having a positive attitude. When a coach has a positive attitude and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.209.251 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC) What is "cren"? It's not mentioned elsewhere in the article.75.111.197.14 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Lead

Is the word "motivation" only about conscious human behavior? Does it include "unconscious" motivation of humans? If it does, then does it also include the motivation of animals? To how broad a set of entities can the word be applied? I think the article is going to be about only human motivation, but it needs to say so. But, clearly, if motivation can be unconscious, then some of the study of animal behavior could be relevant for understanding human motivation and needs to be referred to. I think that kind of positioning needs to go in the lead, with possibly some discussion of the relationship of animal studies in a section of the article. DCDuring 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation

Motivation in psychology usually covers animal behavior, as most of the research literature is on animals. The assumption is that motivation is motivation, just like Skinner's animal studies demonstrated reinforcement patterns that applied to human behavior. --Mattisse 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article takes a particular point of view in that regard, I think that the reader needs to understand in the lead what s/he is getting. I wonder also whether even all the editors understand things in the same way as you. Which is why I bring the matter up. Should we not have links to discussions of motivation in animal ethology if animal behavior is included or germane ? DCDuring 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kick in the Ass

This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick in the Ass, might be of interest to editors here. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Someone had included a sentence here saying that the word was derived from 'motive'. That's wrong, as both 'motive' and 'motivation' are derived from the same Latin root. I've fixed it, including a reference.Bedesboy (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)