u08d1 Historical Perspectives of Motivation Drive, conditioning, cognitive consistency, and humanistic theories are all historical motivation

perspectives. 1. Compare and contrast these early views on motivation. 2. Refer to your readings on Attribution Theory. For the following examples, how would you attribute success to maximize future achievement; in other words, what is the proper attribution to use? (Note: Use the attribution you believe Weiner would use.) a. Your eighth-grade son, who has a 130 IQ, receives a B grade on a paper. b. Your high school daughter tells you she wants to be "just an average student," meaning she will keep her grade point average around 2.00 (or earning mostly C grades). c. Your sixth-grade son, who has a 100 IQ, earns an A on a paper. 3. Define self-concept and contrast it with self-efficacy. 1. Compare and contrast early views on motivation. According to Weiner (2000), there is no collaborative or succinct definition of motivation that epitomizes the variant dimensionality of this intrinsically subjective concept. However, most researchers agree that the study of motivation involves the explication of why humans and nonhumans initiate, select, and endure specific actions within various situational contexts. Historical shifts in the study of the theory of motivation since the 1930s resulted in a variety of hypothetical conceptualizations and formulations of motivation which also included statements regarding an individuals intentionality, goal orientations, as well as environmental incentives. Schunk (2012) posits that motivation is a cognitive construct that essentially involves animating and maintaining goal directed behavior. Over several decades, various investigative trends have been resident throughout the panorama of experimental research in the field of motivation. Between 1930 and 1960, the perceived goal of motivational research was to develop collaborative and ubiquitous theories of motivation and behavior that captured and transcended extrinsic references to situational contexts and human instinctual variation. The conceptualization of motivation derived from a functionalistic view of a non-human organisms instinctual responsiveness to the deprivation of basic need states resulted in a Darwinian approach to understanding motivation and its corresponding mechanisms of drive, arousal, and latent energy dispersions. In essence, early motivational researchers were concerned with what moved an organism with resting potential into action. Two concepts that formed the basis for this exploration: 1) the hedonistic principle that organisms strive to reduce pain and increase pleasure, and 2) acceptance of an organisms cyclical pattern of response to the deprivation of need states that invokes an inherent tendency to strive for internal equilibrium or homeostasis.

Guided by the work of psychologist Clark Hull and his physiological and psychological postulates of drive theory, animal studies were conducted on the deprivation effects on need states or drives in maintaining homeostasis as well as response time and intensity (Schunk 2012, Weiner, 1990, Weiner, 2000). However drive theory did not offer sufficient explanation for variations in drive states, long term goal orientations or academic motivation. Research involving the behavioral theories of classical and operant conditioning and the experimental determinants of stimulus, response and contingency reinforcements led to the development of a conditioning theory to studying motivation and behavior. However, it became readily apparent over time that individuals implement cognitive dimensions of motivation which were beyond the theoretical underpinnings of conditioning theory. Later research on motivation led to the development of cognitive consistency theory. Cognitive consistency theory was based upon the belief that individuals have an intrinsic homeostatic need to maintain equilibrium or balance in cognition and behavior. Cognitions may retain consonant, irrelevant or dissonant states. Cognitive dissonance suggests that individuals with internal cognitive conflict seek to maintain a consonant relationship in beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Schunk, 2012). Dissonance leads to a reduction in internal conflicts to maintain consonance. While this partially explains motivational initiatives of cognition, it is difficult to experimentally verify how dissonance is reduced. Humanistic theories soon developed to explain why individuals make choices and exercise control of their circumstances. Humanistic theorists such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers emphasized that motivation is driven by the necessity of attaining basic needs and maximizing ones potential (Schunk, 2012). This approach emphasized the inherent desire of individuals for fulfillment of physiological, psychological and self actualizing needs and was later applied by Rogers to learning and instruction as well. It exemplified a taxonomic hierarchy that serves as a guide to understanding the holistic nature of human existence as a multifaceted and dynamic interaction of need states acting as correlates of motivation. 2. Refer to your readings on Attribution Theory. For the following examples, how would you attribute success to maximize future achievement; in other words, what is the proper attribution to use? (Note: Use the attribution you believe Weiner would use.) a. Your eighth-grade son, who has a 130 IQ, receives a B grade on a paper. b. Your high school daughter tells you she wants to be "just an average student," meaning she will keep her grade point average around 2.00 (or earning mostly C grades). c. Your sixth-grade son, who has a 100 IQ, earns an A on a paper. Weiner posited that learners basically attribute learning outcomes to four factors: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck (Schunk, 2012). These are not comprehensive factorials, but represent general factors that predict learning outcomes. Other factors such as mood, personality,

appearance, etc were also deemed important. According to Weiner (2007), causal properties of locus, stability and controllability have situational generality in academic learning. Locus refers to location and influences affective reactions, stability refers to the duration of the cause of success or failure and controllability refers to the diverse effects of whether an individual has the volitional capability to control or not control situational contexts. Weiner (2007) emphasizes that all causes are located in this three dimensional causal learning paradigm. Moreover, Weiner also represented causes along two dimensions: internal and external to the learner (Schunk, 2012). For example, under (a) above your eighth-grade son has a 130 IQ, and receives a B grade on a paper. Given the realm of intelligence abilities possessed by the son, what is the cause of failure to obtain a higher grade? This perhaps indicates a lack of effort which is an internal, controllable cause which may cause guilt for not failing to achieve his potential. Assuming academic success is his goal, his motivation increases when encouraged to exert greater academic effort and better study skills. Under (b) above your high school daughter tells you she wants to be just an average student meaning she will keep her grade point average around 2.00 (or earning mostly C grades). This may be attributed to laziness towards academics which is a stable internal causal attribution, but also may involve an unstable, internal and uncontrollable attribution of mood or affective states. The daughter may suffer from a decrement of self esteem. Attributional success for this daughter might involve the use of controllable scaffolding by competent others to delve into the mood and effort aspects of her decision. Finally, under (c) above, your sixth-grade son, who has a 100 IQ, earns an A on a paper indicates the stable and controllable causal attribution of effort was extended by the son despite the uncontrollable causal attribution of his average IQ or ability. His attribution for success in exercise general effort will lead to higher motivational states to pursue more difficult academic challenges and tasks. 1. Define self-concept and contrast it with self-efficacy. Educators seeking to understand how human personality and functioning affect motivation and learning outcomes have a keen interest in studying constructs such as self esteem, self concept or self confidence. Self concept is a multidimensional subjective construct defined as ones collective self perception based upon personal and environmental experiences and evaluations by others (Schunk, 2012). In contrast, self esteem is the internal perception of ones value or worth. It involves perceived sense of self respect and is an evaluative subcomponent of ones collective self concept. Anthony Rhodes General Psychology PhD. References

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.616 Weiner, B. (2000). Motivation: An overview. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.) , Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 5 (pp. 314-317). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10520-133 Weiner, B. (2007). Motivation from an Attribution Perspective and the Social Psychology of Perceived Competence. In Handbook of Competence and Motivation, by Elliot, Andrew J; Dweck, Carol S (eds). Guilford Press. p. 7384. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education). ISBN: 9780137071951.

Weiner, B. (1991). Metaphors in motivation and attribution. American Psychologist, 46(9), 921930. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.921 Weiner, B.. (2010). The Development of an Attribution-Based Theory of Motivation: A History of Ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36. doi:10.1080/00461520903433596 Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychological Review. 12(1).

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623-636. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623

Heckhausen, J. (2000). Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Motivation. American Behavioral Scientist. 43(6) p. 1015-1029 doi: 10.1177/00027640021955739