Underpinnings
Five foundational doctrines of motivational science
This chapter introduces the reader to the humanistic orientation and profile approach used to study motivated behavior throughout the text. First, three personal vignettes are presented to behaviorally illustrate several important concepts related to motivation. Next, readers will uncover five foundational principles that define how motivation is described and expressed. Some common misconceptions about motivation are revealed and clarified. Additionally, the chapter illuminates one of the major themes of the text: self-awareness. The chapter concludes with the completion of a self-assessment designed to determine the reader’s overall knowledge of motivation and specifically assess some of the principles covered later in the text.
Keywords
Self-awareness; case studies; inequality; beliefs; motives
Introduction
The morning of September 1, 2012, was a typical weekend day, for me. I had little interest in doing work, few deadlines approaching, and some time to kill. I quickly realized the timing was perfect to reach one of my personal goals, completing a 50-mile bicycle ride. This goal would be a major milestone for me, something I had never attempted, and an accomplishment I could brag about to my family, friends, and co-workers. After all, at least judging by social media standards, many people like to broadcast their accomplishments, right?
I was committed to reaching my goal. Without reservation, I loaded my backpack with food, energy drinks, and a second shirt to deal with the searing 90-degree heat and humidity of the Florida noon-day sun. Although I had been biking regularly for 8 months, I had a good deal of skepticism, considering my declining 56-year-old body. Did I have the stamina and endurance to complete 50 miles? Could I finish early enough to avoid the inevitable afternoon thundershowers? What streets should I take, and how could I avoid as much traffic as possible? I consciously planned my route, well aware of when I would need to rest and how long it would take me to finish. Most importantly, I thought about how I would motivate myself to continue cycling when swarms of insects flew in my face and mouth, or when my legs started to burn from the heat and exhaustion.
I never found out if I could pedal the entire 50 miles. While waiting for the incessant traffic to abate at mile 34, my motivation changed. The traffic light signaled green, and I pushed off the curb into the crosswalk. According to police records, four seconds later, I was thrown onto the road, screaming in agony, when a reckless driver plowed into my bicycle at 40 miles per hour. First, I was hurled onto the hood of the car, and then my helmet-protected head slammed into the windshield, causing the glass to shatter. I was then propelled into the air and plummeted to the hot asphalt. At that moment, I was only motivated to survive.
In what seemed like seconds, the ambulance arrived. I was immobilized and rushed to the trauma center, blood dripping down my face from the deep lacerations on my forehead. Upon arrival at the hospital, radiology determined I had nine broken bones: left clavicle, six ribs, right hip, and left scapula. Immediate surgery was necessary to repair and plate my shattered clavicle, the most frequently broken bone in bicycle accidents. That was when the really bad news arrived: doctors informed me that I would be in the hospital for several weeks and confined to a wheelchair for at least 3 months. The assurance of a full recovery was doubtful. The intravenous morphine was insufficient to ease the pain from my massive injuries or to keep me from obsessing about how horrible my life had suddenly become.
The passing weeks were filled with mental anguish, erratic rest, night fevers, and abdominal shots to thwart the blood clots that might kill me. I was immobilized for over a week. The only seemingly normal aspect of my existence was my mind, groggy but still working like before. As a professor of educational psychology at a major university, I was scheduled to teach three online courses that semester. I also decided that studying Italian was a brilliant idea in preparation for an eventual trip abroad. How could I continue under the circumstances of my injuries? How would my potential absence affect my students? I thought deeply about my circumstances and decided to continue teaching and elected not to use my accident as an excuse to drop my Italian class. I was committed to living up to my responsibilities despite the constant reminders of pain and agony that still linger to this very day. I never did miss a day of work and earned an “A” in my Italian class.
The story you just read is true and illustrates many points that will be covered in this book. You may not have noticed, but my story was about setting goals, picking strategies, contemplating alternatives, and reflecting on accomplishment. This book is not about me, though; this book is about you. It will take you on a journey of self-exploration, revealing what motivates both you and others. You will gain a deep understanding of the principles of motivation, all substantiated by empirical scientific evidence. Through a series of candid interviews and stories like the one you just read, you will learn about the motives, reasoning, and behaviors of driven, motivated individuals. Some will be recognized, others just names without a face. You will read about how these leaders determined their goals, executed strategies, and achieved results. You will learn why some individuals prosper and some fail. You will understand why some people persevere through obstacles, while others simply give up. Decision making and choice will be analyzed to explain why the rest of the world may think and act differently from the way you do. Most importantly, by studying the principles in this book, you will become a motivational detective (MD), motivationally wise and strategically gifted with the ability to diagnose, analyze, and influence the motivational challenges that you will invariably encounter during your daily journey through life.
First, you should read the story of Ginny and Jerry, two fraternal twins raised together in the same 1980s suburban New York home by the same nurturing parents. As children, the twins were inseparable: They attended the same schools, went to the same summer camps, and always shared the same circle of friends. Their father, Mel, provided well for his family, commuting 50 miles a day while working long hours as a licensed NYC accountant. Rose, a stay-at-home mom, ruled the house with an iron hand. Rose made sure that Ginny and Jerry had a predictable routine. The twins always made their beds immediately upon waking, and if they were not at the table precisely by 7:00 AM, there would be no breakfast for them that day. Homework had to be completed before meeting friends or playing board games with each other, the twins’ favorite childhood pastime. Both children had obligatory chores: Ginny walked the family dog Leary, while Jerry was always taking out the trash or bundling old newspapers for the local paper drive. Both worked before they were teens. Ginny was a babysitter because she loved children, and aspiring entrepreneur Jerry ran a paper route, delivering newspapers, before he was barely 12 years old. Now adults, Ginny and Jerry are barely recognizable as siblings and are radically different individuals. Each twin possesses a unique approach to life that belies genetic similarities. Many people who know the twins don’t even realize the familial connection because they look, act, and navigate life so differently. The explicit differences between these adult fraternal twins serve as an ideal depiction of one of the first principles you will learn to unravel the mysteries of motivation: motivational inequality.
Principle #1—Motivational inequality is a measurable reality
What are we able to conclude about motives from the stories of Ginny and Jerry? First, we can deduce that significant motivational differences exist between individuals in the direction and intensity of organized effort. Ginny thrives on socialization, whereas Jerry is studious. Ginny takes every day as it comes, and Jerry is a serious planner. Ginny loves people, and Jerry wants to get things done. It would be speculative to comment upon the reasons and sources of the motivational differences between the twins based upon the limited information provided; however, motivational inequality is a verifiable cultural universal (Adams, 1965; Alderman, 2004; Nicholls, 1979). Cultural universals are “domains of human experience that have existed in all cultures past and present” (Brophy & Alleman, 2006, p. 5). For now, we will operate under the assumption that regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, or any other innate individual differences, all individuals are NOT created equal, motivationally. This inequality manifests in a wide degree of preferences as to what tasks individuals will attempt, how and why they set goals, and what behaviors or strategies they use to obtain and evaluate objectives.
The embodiment of motivational inequality in practice can be observed through a careful examination of learning and performance contexts. In the classroom, learners exhibit a broad spectrum of topical interest and academic engagement ranging from intense focus measured by active involvement in learning, to academic passivity whereby the learner is physically present but cognitively disengaged. The most egregious forms of disengagement result in deliberate apathy and conscious withdrawal from the learning process (Hoffman, Badgett, & Parker, 2008; Maeroff, 1988; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). A 2009 survey of 42,754 high school students indicated that over 66% of students admitted to being bored or disinterested while in school, and sporadic engagement was linked to accelerated dropout rates (Yazzie-Mintz, 2009). Student engagement is highly relevant to achievement, as it is positively correlated with adaptive academic motivation (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004) and the quality of learning outcomes (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
At work, motivational inequality may develop as employees assess and value their roles within an organization. By design, organizations create a hierarchy of labor and entitlements based upon the purported market value of the skills and abilities that employees possess. When employees perceive their pay equity, organizational stature, or work role as compromised or incommensurate with organizational norms, work performance may suffer. Rooted in equity theory (Adams, 1965; Morand & Merriman, 2012), employees have a sense of entitlement based upon the expectation that their contributions (e.g., skills, talent, abilities) should be appropriately rewarded and recognized. The perception of imbalance between what employees believe should happen and organizational realities can result in performance issues, deviant workplace behavior, and lower levels of job satisfaction, which ultimately influence performance motivation.
Recognizing motivational inequality has important implications for both educators and leaders. First, for teachers, the motivational disparities of students may prompt unconscious and even deliberate alteration of teaching strategies, such as assigning easier work to students who are perceived as having lower academic motivation. Personal bias toward certain learners can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, where less is expected of the motivationally inferior learner, resulting in adverse changes as to how teachers interact and communicate with students (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Although recent evidence suggests that only 5% to 10% of students are typically affected by self-fulfilling prophecies, the impact on the quality of learning outcomes is extraordinary (Jussim, 2012). In addition, the consequences of interacting differently with students demonstrating low academic motivation disproportionally affects at-risk learners, thereby exacerbating the obstacles for those learners that need the most support (Dolan & McCaslin, 2008; Tulis, 2013).
Organizational consequences of not recognizing motivational differences are equally troubling. Although the utility of equity theory has been questioned in recent years due to an emphasis on collectivist values and evolution of the labor market (Skiba & Rosenberg, 2011), individual workers may still consciously withhold effort in situations where an injustice is perceived. A prerequisite for organizational prosperity is the emphasis by leaders on instilling a coalesced corporate culture, but not at the expense of ignoring personal motivation and individual values. The dualistic emphasis provides employees with a sense of organizational justice, while maintaining the delicate equilibrium between worker individuality and organizational focus (Kleiner & von Post, 2011).
Principle #2—Motivation can be defined, but not universally
Before we proceed, we should clarify exactly how researchers and scientists operationally define motivation. Operational definitions avoid scholarly debates about the meaning of words but, instead, describe concepts in terms of measurable observations that can be tested through scientific methods (Stanovich, 2013). Operational definitions exclude personal feelings, opinions, and experiences because these proprietary interpretations of phenomena defy scientific scrutiny and cannot be directly replicated with or by other individuals. For example, if I told you that before I complete a boring obligatory task, such as doing laundry, I motivate myself by thinking of little green men with guns shooting sunbeams at me, then you would infer my personal definition of motivation is “extraterrestrials that encourage me to complete boring tasks.” Hopefully, my definition of motivation isn’t the same as yours, and surely we conclude that the definition cannot be tested; thus, my experience serves no purpose in operationally defining the concept of motivation.
So, what exactly is motivation? Textbook and conventional definitions vary, but all interpretations of motivation etymologically originate from the Latin verb movere “to move.” Motivation has been defined as “the condition of being eager to act or work” (Merriam-Webster, 2015), “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008, p. 4), and as the internal processes that give behavior energy and direction (Reeve, 2009). These related interpretations of motivation all evolve around the core concept of explaining the internal causes that trigger and sustain the course of human behavior. For our purposes, motivation is defined as the degree of effort and intensity directed toward a goal related to learning or performance. The use of motivation terminology is such a formidable and debatable challenge that Murphy and Alexander (2000) devoted over 50 pages attempting to convince the scientific community that a shared lexicon of terminology is essential for motivational research findings to be of value to practitioners. Semantically, motivation will be used as a term to describe the process of directing and applying effort and to describe the outcomes of behavior, such as in the example “Ginny was motivated to find a great job (an outcome) despite her lack of academic motivation (a process).”
The study of motivation is wrought with seemingly accurate and logical individual interpretations of motivated behavior, described as “folk wisdom” (Stanovich, 2013, p. 13). These conceptions comprise apparently indisputable personal truths and beliefs about the nature of human behavior, although these beliefs are frequently unsubstantiated or are direct distortions of scientific evidence, such as the conventional wisdom that worker productivity is increased by higher wages. The study of motivation is particularly susceptible to this conventional wisdom, sometimes referred to as “common sense” because individuals across Western cultures are bombarded by motivational symbolism, hackneyed clichés, and incessant commercialism suggesting reasons to initiate and sustain behavior. After all, isn’t it common knowledge that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” that “practice makes perfect,” and that merely by wearing Nike apparel with an embroidered “swoosh,” you will be energized to achieve athletic prowess never before thought possible?
Motivational metaphors and subliminal messages abound throughout popular culture and media, suggesting reasons why we should use certain strategies to achieve our goals and ensure predictable consequences of our effort. The Beatles contended “all we need is love,” Frank Sinatra crooned he did it “his” way, Bon Jovi is “living on a prayer,” and the “Boss” (Bruce Springsteen) espouses his theory of biological influences on motivation by proclaiming, “Baby, we were BORN to run!” Less metaphorically, when reading the stories of Ginny and Jerry, did you come to the potentially erroneous conclusion that Jerry was less adventurous than Ginny and wouldn’t possibly do anything to risk his physical safety or the security of his job and family? Deliberately excluded from Jerry’s parable was mention that he is a competitive skier, who frequently competes in extreme black diamond skiing events, leaving his wife and family at home to go skiing with the “guys.” The problem with folk beliefs and common sense is these conceptions are frequently wrong, as supported by Principles #3 and #4.
Principle #3—There is no such thing as being unmotivated
Have you ever uttered the words “he is unmotivated” or “she has no initiative,” when describing a spouse, partner, child, student, or co-worker? Most likely, if you haven’t spoken those words, you have probably heard them! My interactions with teachers and business leaders frequently suggest that academic apathy or lack of engagement in the classroom signifies the absence of motivation. Lay descriptions of motivated behavior repeatedly suggest that motivation is a quantifiable resource, akin to a glass of fine wine, which if not sipped slowly and judiciously conserved, will quickly disappear. Although, strong evidence supports qualifying both academic motivation (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002) and personal motivation (e.g., self-control) as a depletable resource (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), “having NO motivation” is a convenient misnomer commonly used by parents, teachers, and managers to describe the recalcitrant or indifferent individual who does not meet his or her personal performance expectations. Consequently, one of the most prevalent ways that we evaluate the performance of others is by comparing them to ourselves (Darnon, Dompnier, Gilliéron, & Butera, 2010; Festinger, 1954; Swift, Abrams, & Marques, 2013), which often leads to flawed conclusions concerning a person’s motivation.
Ascribing NO motivation to a living individual suggests a potential discrepancy between the beliefs of the individual making the assessment and the beliefs of those being assessed. Sometimes labeled as “individualism” in Western cultures, displaying personal attributes implies that each person is a “unique entity that is bounded and fundamentally separate from its social surrounding” (Kim & Chu, 2011, p. 58). Perhaps the best illustration of individualism is the highway dilemma. Everyone knows that the person driving faster than you is reckless and irresponsible, whereas the person driving slower than you is obviously deficient in both driving ability and intelligence. Such biased reasoning likely leads to the erroneous conclusion that your driving behavior is entirely appropriate and justified, but the other person is wrong.
The apparent absence of a particular behavior signifying no motivation is a common misconception refuted by the multiplicity of factors that undermine motivation. Scholars in motivational science have identified at least 24 different ways to interpret motivated behavior (Reeve, 2009), many of which have obvious inconsistencies with the understandings and expectations of teachers, parents, or business leaders at any one time. Table 1.1 lists several of the most popular perspectives that researchers have used to categorize applied motivation, many of which are examined throughout this text.
Table 1.1
Popular perspectives used to categorize motivated behavior
| Motivation category | Reference citation |
| Academic | Schunk et al. (2008) |
| Achievement | Elliot (1997) |
| Biological/Evolutionary | Pinker (2002) |
| Choice | Tversky and Kahneman (1992) |
| Optimal | Csikszentmihalyi (1997) |
| Performance | Privette (1981) |
| Personal | Ryan and Deci (2000) |
| Social | Dunning (2011) |
The previous paragraph and Table 1.1 suggest that understanding motivated behavior is a complex process that can be accomplished in a wide variety of ways and viewed through a vast number of theoretical lenses. We can also surmise that at any one time, different individuals consider an assortment of goals when assessing the direction and intensity of their intended efforts. For example, we might suspect that an individual is academically unmotivated (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000) but conclude that the person is more inclined to satisfy other raging priorities or needs. The discrepancy between expected behavior and observed behavior in a particular context does not signify the absence of motivation. Instead, the inconsistency suggests that individuals undergo a perpetual internal dogfight, evaluating and prioritizing their cognitions as a conduit to determine when, where, why, and how they will direct their effort and attention.
Principle #4—Behavior≠motivation, and there are no “motivational” types
Some of us may believe that by simply observing an individual’s behavior, we can reasonably conclude what caused the behavior. For example, if we watch a young woman with height proportional to weight consume a voluminous amount of food at the school cafeteria, we would likely believe this individual was famished. Similarly, we might make predictions about the nature of collective behavior. Imagine that a group of normally productive hourly workers are not meeting production targets. A potential solution to boost output could be giving an across-the-board wage increase. We might expect that productivity would immediately spike following the raise because most workers are motivated, at least in part, by earning more money. Unfortunately, both the cafeteria and production suppositions would be wrong. Research indicates that only 33% of college females eat for reasons based upon hunger alone (Mintz & Betz, 1988), and the relationship between worker pay and productivity has been on a gradual, but steady, decline since 1987 (Long, Dziczek, Luria, & Wiarda, 2008). These examples suggest that behavior is a poor indicator to predict what motivates an individual because of a phenomenon called equifinality (McDougall, 1923) that develops when similar behaviors represent entirely different motives (Dunning, 2011).
Diagnosing the cause of behaviors is further complicated by the dynamic, multi-dimensional nature of motivations, which vary situationally both within and between individuals. Motives are generally guided by some combination of biological, psychological, social, and emotional forces that will be discussed in detail throughout the text. However, simplistic singular explanations of motivation discount the proclivity of individuals to concurrently have multiple motives, some subordinate to others. Although researchers debate whether individuals prioritize motives in a well-defined hierarchy (Maslow, 1958), constancy of change in motives is inevitable. Motives are sometimes described as “ultimate” when a desired outcome is reached or as “instrumental” when subordinate goals are attained that sustain momentum toward the individual’s desired end state (Batson, Ahmad, & Stocks, 2011, p. 104). For example, one may ultimately desire to earn a medical degree and demonstrate accomplishment, perseverance, and determination in the process (ultimate motive) but to avoid embarrassment, may drop an elective course if failure is imminent (instrumental motive).
Understanding the meaning of observed behaviors is further complicated by the dispositional nature of motivation (Spence, 1944) when intervening variables, such as context, affect, or mood, can change both the direction and intensity of individual effort. Consider when you learned about the “9/11” tragedies that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 people. You may have experienced feelings of fear, anger, and sadness that day, which subsequently inhibited your ability to effectively complete any work. Your inability to focus on work did not represent either a questionable work ethic or laziness, but instead your efforts were redirected by an emotionally charged event. Thus, accurately deciphering observed behavior requires an understanding of the specific reasons why motives and goals are redirected, which cannot be confirmed by behavioral observation alone.
The presumption that motives frequently change is contrary to some popular press conceptions that infer that motivation is a stable, predictable characteristic that often defines the individual (Lowe, 2009; Pink, 2011). Pop descriptions of motivation may lead the uninformed practitioner to believe that completing “diagnostic tools” that offer dichotomous choices between behaviors will lead to an instant detailed description of monistic motivation. In contrast, the confluence of evidence suggests that motivation is a fluid, malleable, and variable combination of needs, drives, interests, attributions, and intentions (Reeve, 2009; Ryan, 2012). Individuals invariably set and approach tasks by using a repertoire of strategies that frequently change based upon their experiences, situational goals, emotions, and the context of their efforts. Although some individuals possess deeply entrenched beliefs with strong cultural or secular values that manifest in predictable and resistant patterns of behavior, constancy of human motives is a conceptual fantasy propagated by those seeking simple unitary solutions to human behavior. It is the variability within individuals that discounts the veracity of having a predictable motivational type.
Withstanding the fallacy of labeling individuals, researchers have identified multiple types of motivation (e.g., intrinsic versus extrinsic; Ryan & Deci, 2000) suggesting that individuals may have habitual or preferred motivational tendencies. Researchers also frequently classify individuals into homogeneous subgroups by using empirically supported analysis techniques, such as latent profile analysis that cluster similarities between individuals together as a method to study motivation (Marsh, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Morin, 2009; Pastor, Barron, Miller, & Davis, 2007; Schwinger, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2012). However, these person-centered approaches are primarily predicated upon evaluating individuals in experimental and simulated contexts that inhibit generalization to other populations, tasks, or settings. Thus, although intuitively we may believe that individuals have dominant motives, motives will fluctuate within individuals, and motives should be expected to change, frequently.
Principle #5—Individuals may not recognize or understand their own motives
As you likely realize by now, objectively deciphering the meaning of motivated behavior, even when using sound scientific practice, is a formidable challenge for both researchers and practitioners. Unlike the pronounced physical attributes that distinguish human beings, psychological markers, such as beliefs, preferences, and personal expectancies, defy direct observation and are even more difficult to interpret precisely. Self-report is often chosen as the preferred methodology to collect information about individuals and ascertain the meanings of behaviors. The enigma of analysis is complicated by the reality that individuals may not recognize the sources of their own subjective behaviors, resulting in the frequent misinterpretation of motives (Feldon, 2007). In other cases, people will deliberately distort the meanings of their own behaviors (Hyman & Sierra, 2011). Many individuals feel a perceived obligation to present positive or expected self-images to researchers (Greene, 2015), resulting in response inaccuracies based on the contrived perceptions of social desirability (Johnson & Fendrich, 2002). Reporting and interpretative errors are so rampant that in a study investigating which personal beliefs influenced problem solving, Feldon (2010) concluded that “participants’ self-explanations are largely inaccurate” (p. 395).
The origination and the evolutionary nature of motives compound inaccurate reporting and interpretation. Motivations are frequently categorized into two types: (1) as self-determined and conscious intentions, which are deemed explicit, and (2) as spontaneous automatic actions that operate with limited or no active awareness by the individual, which is termed implicit (Kehr, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Thrash, Maruskin, & Martin, 2012). Motives described as explicit are relatively easier to evaluate because they are readily identifiable by an individual and typically are associated with the pursuit of a specific measurable goal. When a person feels thirsty, he or she takes a drink. When a person expects to attend a birthday party, he or she consciously decides to bring a celebratory gift. Explicit motives are typically primed by contextual or social factors (Aarts & Custers, 2012) and evolve from routine experience-related memories that are exemplified by conscious intentional behavior (Kehr, 2004). When describing explicit motives, individuals can potentially articulate the linkages between their planned actions and exhibited behaviors with accuracy due to conscious processing. However, these descriptions are susceptible to errors of bias, such as the common practice of telling researchers exactly what they want to hear in an attempt to appear compliant and support scientific inquiry.
Although intentional behaviors may begin explicitly, a variety of cognitive and affective factors may influence the direction and intensity of subsequent actions. Implicit motives develop as an individual executes goal-directed behavior outside of conscious awareness. A long history of research suggests that “any skill—perceptual, motor, or cognitive—requires less and less conscious attention, the more frequently and consistently it is engaged” (Bargh & Barndollar, 1996, p. 458). Classified as habits, these deeply engrained actions are acquired through practice and are perhaps the best examples of unconsciously motivated behaviors. The implicit nature of habits is illustrated by my imaginary friend Peter Parker, who actively seeks to park his car at work in the same parking space every day. Peter, we might say, is a creature of habit. One day, while arriving late for work, the habitual parker is forced to find a spot on the opposite side of the parking lot because an ambitious early arriver had taken his regular spot. After a grueling day at the office, the practiced parker in a zombie-like post-work state walks directly to his usual parking spot, only to find that he has walked in the opposite direction of where his car is parked.
This rather simplistic explanation of habitual behavior, although quite common, fails to take into account a multitude of other factors that can implicitly redirect an individual’s cognitions and effort. When faced with situations requiring regulation of their behaviors, individuals are confronted with numerous analytical and judgmental propositions that are directly influenced by implicit cognitions and motives (Greenwald, 1992). Dispositions, such as those related to prejudice, stereotyping, overconfidence, and the selective recall and inconsistent scrutiny of information, are frequently influenced by implicit motivations. Regardless of the types of these implicit motives, many of which will be discussed throughout the text, the real problem for the practitioner is trying to interpret motivated behavior.
Almost universally, the source of misinformation for practitioners originates from rather naive, limited-capacity, emotionally charged individuals who have only marginal access to understanding their own behaviors! Schultheiss and Brunstein (2010) in their voluminous work on the derivatives and impact of implicit motives suggested “people cannot validly report on their motivational needs” (p. 4), and Fiedler (2012) lamented that even when people are shown data representing their implicit motives they “miss the story behind it” (p. 4). This rather despondent description of an individual’s inability to accurately report why one engages in certain behaviors is a reality of interpreting motivated behavior. However, the analytical challenge becomes even more difficult when taking into account a host of measurement and statistical inference liabilities, which are discussed throughout the text. As for now, we should merely conclude that measuring and understanding motivational difference goes far beyond observing behavior or examining self-reported evidence. Avoiding interpretive pitfalls are an important first step to assessing and evaluating one’s self-awareness as well as the motives of others.
Chapter summary/conclusions
Based upon the dubious implications of the first five principles, you might be thinking that the process of identification, diagnosis, and resolution of issues related to enhancing motivation for learning and performance is more of a fairy tale designed to sell books than an obtainable scientific reality. However, a wealth of confluent scientific evidence suggests that motivated behavior can be objectively evaluated and that evidence-supported strategies can be applied to influence how individuals approach, persist in, and complete the tasks they choose to pursue. Research evidence provides the substance for the solutions that are gradually revealed as the defining motivational principles unfold.
Although the diagnosis of motivational issues is a challenge, the mediation process starts with the acknowledgment that the motivational profile of each individual is, indeed, unique. Like a fingerprint, each individual exhibits a diverse set of behaviors that are instigated by a variety of motives, some more prominent and obvious than others. The natural diversity of motives between and within individuals is subject to constant revision as the individual navigates his or her own proprietary perceptual, contextual, and social environment. The inequality of motivation means that the behaviors exhibited by one individual may mean something radically different from similar behaviors displayed by another person, leading to the MD’s dilemma of how to best understand and mediate motivational challenges. Unfortunately, reliance upon individuals to disclose the nature of their motivations may not be the best repository of information. However, individual representations combined with systematic analysis, based upon scientific knowledge grounded in methodological rigor, supply a wealth of information to assist the practitioner.
Through a process of gathering information from a variety of parables and descriptions, the reader will likely experience a catharsis of self-exploration and self-awareness. The profiles in the text allow the aspiring diagnostician to use real-life examples to practice the science of finding and promoting motivation in the self and others. An ancient proverb succinctly illustrates the ongoing approach of enhancing our own knowledge through the experiences of others: “A wise man will hear and increase in learning, and a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel” (New American Standard Bible, 1995, Proverbs 1:5). Thus, we shall frequently turn to our wise counsel for advice because theories alone are insufficient to answer all questions.
Assess your basic knowledge
One goal of this chapter was to dispel some of the common misconceptions concerning motivation. Unfortunately, many of the descriptions of motivation by the popular press are not scientifically sound or validated by empirical evidence. Thus, there are many misconceptions concerning motivational science. Many of these familiar fallacies will be refuted and dispelled in the upcoming chapters. Before we embark on our continuing journey of finding motivation and discovering the strategies than can enhance motivation for learning and performance, let’s put your knowledge to the test: Proceed cautiously, and take the motivation quiz….
The following statements can be considered either true or false. The number in the right column signifies in which chapter(s) the principle relating to the question is discussed.
| Question | Answer | Discussed in chapter |
| 1. There is no such thing as optimal motivation. | True or False? | 2 |
| 2. A reliable strategy to enhance performance is to provide extrinsic rewards, such as grades or money. | True or False? | 6 |
| 3. Your personal knowledge of motivation and use of motivational strategies can help foster behavior changes in just about anyone. | True or False? | 12 |
| 4. The amount of effort dedicated toward a task can be hindered by emotions, such as happiness, excitement, or enthusiasm. | True or False? | 9 |
| 5. If a task is too difficult, motivation to complete the task will decrease. | True or False? | 6 |
| 6. Learners rarely care about both grades and gaining expertise. It is either one or the other. | True or False? | 6 |
| 7. Research indicates you can be an effective instructor even if you believe some students are better learners than others. | True or False? | 5 |
| 8. Effort is more important than expertise when it comes to academic excellence. | True or False? | 10 |
| 9. It is usually a good idea to offer help to a learner when you suspect the learner is struggling. | True or False? | 8 |
| 10. A motivational strategy effective in one domain may fail in another. | True or False? | 11 |
| 11. Thinking patterns and motivational tendencies are closely related. | True or False? | 2 |
| 12. If you think you will fail at a task, you will likely underperform on the task regardless of your abilities. | True or False? | 7 |
| 13. There is no such thing as being in the “zone.” | True or False? | 9 |
| 14. The most successful learners are those who rely minimally on the teacher and take responsibility for their own learning. | True or False? | 10 |
| 15. Cultural factors can be strong determinants of motivated behaviors and can supersede ability. | True or False? | 5 |
| 16. Research indicates that motivation and motivational strategies vary according to age. | True or False? | 4 |
| 17. Learners with test anxiety need to accept the fact that being nervous is just part of the process of learning and assessment. | True or False? | 9 |
| 18. Most workers report job satisfaction when they are well paid. | True or False? | 6 |
| 19. There is a genetic basis for motivational tendencies. | True or False? | 3 |
| 20. Motivation toward a task varies according to your level of expertise. | True or False? | 7 |
Next steps
Thinking back, you may have wondered about the stories of Ginny and Jerry, the fraternal twins. The twins will be referenced later as we navigate the course of understanding motivation. We will also return to my own story later as a means to show how planning, evaluation, and reflection impact ensuing behavior. However, before we transition into a discussion of some of the individuals profiled in the book, we should realize that not all questions about motivation can be answered through scientific methods. Further, despite the advantage of empirical evidence to explain behavior, many areas of motivational science are subject to ambiguity and debate. Sometimes, studies reveal inconsistent patterns of evidence or provide data that can be interpreted in multiple ways. We next turn our discussion to some of the enigmatic and contentious issues complicating the life of the MD and virtually meet Bernard L. Madoff, who some might contend exhibited the pinnacle of performance motivation.
End of chapter motivational minute
Principles covered in this chapter:
1. Motivational inequality is a measurable reality—the expectation that individuals from different backgrounds and cultures are equally advantaged in the type and quantity of motivation they demonstrate is a regrettable fallacy.
2. Motivation can be defined, but not universally—although consensus indicates that motivation for learning and performance is “the degree of effort and intensity directed toward a goal,” researchers continually debate the precise meaning and representation of a myriad of motivational constructs.
3. There is no such thing as being unmotivated—the apparent “absence of motivation” is a common description used when individuals appear not to be focused in the same direction of the person evaluating their motivation. Everyone is motivated, but motivational diversity within and between individuals is dramatic.
4. Behavior ≠ motivation, and there are no “motivational” types—many popular press conceptions of motivation are not supported by scientific evidence, primarily due to the notion that any particular behavior can represent a multitude of motives.
5. Individuals may not recognize or understand their own motives—unfortunately, most individuals cannot accurately report the causes of their own behaviors due to the implicit nature of many motivations. Additionally, individuals are susceptible to personal bias and the perceived need to demonstrate socially desirable behaviors.
Key terminology (in order of chapter presentation):
Cultural universals—domains of human experience that have existed in all cultures past and present.
Operational definitions—describing concepts in terms of measurable observations that can be tested through scientific methods.
Applied motivation—the use of scientific evidence and empirical knowledge to mediate issues of motivation in practical settings, such as the classroom or workplace.
Equifinality—behaviors between individuals that represent entirely different motives.
Self-report—the reliance upon individuals to provide personal interpretation of their motives, typically gathered through surveys or interviews.
Explicit—motives within the stream of consciousness accurately recognized and interpreted by the individual.
Implicit—automatic motives not readily recognized within the direct stream of consciousness of an individual.
Habits—deeply engrained motives, behaviors, and actions acquired through experience or practice.