Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Handbook of Educational Psychology PDF

    Diunggah oleh

    Chris Walker
    461 tayangan24 halaman

    Judul Asli

    Handbook of Educational Psychology.pdf

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    461 tayangan24 halaman

    Handbook of Educational Psychology PDF

    Diunggah oleh

    Chris Walker

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 24
    HANDBOOK OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY David C. Berliner eprror Robert C. Calfee EDITOR chapter H A Project of Division 15, The Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association ‘MACMILLAN LIBRARY REFERENCE USA. Simon & Schuster Macrallan New York il Lnermational Singapore Sydney Toronto. +4- THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVATION Sandra Graham UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES arly humans no doubt constructed bridges well before engi- neering courses and knowledge of the laws of physics existed, primitive healers attained cures well before medical courses and knowledge ofthe laws of biology existed; and achievement strings in others were fostered well before selfinstructional tapes and knowledge of the laws of motivation existed. But it {is also tue tha the laws of physics aided the construction ofthe Golden Gate Bridge and the laws of biology helped eradicate smallpox. In a similae vein, theories of motivation may assist in the creation of rules to enhance human performance. We acknowledge at the outset that this motivational goal is pres- ently more a dream than a reality and will not reach fruition inthe reader’ ifesime. Thus, those beginning this chapter with the anticipation that after reading the final paragraph they can go back into the classroom and soon have all the students ‘working with intensity and postive affect wil be disappointed. “This does not mean that effective principles of motivation do. not exist, as Deborah Stipek illustrates in the following chapter. Buc a belief about motivation or 2 specific guide ‘conduct fa from a theory. For example, itis common knowl edge that fa person is engaged in an activity that is interesting, engrossing, and involving, and the person is oblivious to all ‘else, hen motivation is high. Intensity, persistence, and other indicators of motivation will thereby be augmented. Psycholo- gists are well ware ofthis act, and one approach to enhancing motivation stresses “intrinsic” motivation (Dec, 1975), or moti- vational “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi 1975), where conditions are ‘created that increase interest so that learning and mastery are ‘sought for their own sake. This reasonable and in all likelihood ‘correct principle of motivation is shared by prescientfic socie- ties und modvational engineersalike. Buta guideline for behav- tor is far from 2 theory of motivation Numerous other principles of mouvation have been pro- posed, and they tend to be in agreement with the thoughts of lay consumers of this knowledge. For example, it has been argued that the search for knowledge will be impeded if other ‘motivations necessary for survival such as hunger, are more Bernard Weiner UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES pressing (Maslow, 1943); that positive benefits accruing from performance will increase the likelihood of subsequent repeti- tions of this desired behavior (Skinner, 1953); that students will be positively motivated if they are more concemed with mastery of the material than with doing better than others (Nicholls, 1984), and that contexts should be established so that students perceive themselves as personally responsible for performance rather than as passive recipients controlled by outside forces (deCharms, 1972). all of these examples depict reasonable be- liefs that can be incorporated into educational programs, with some likelihood of augmenting motwvation and performance. ‘They are not, however, theories of motivation. WHAT IS A MOTIVATIONAL THEORY? To address this question, let us begin with a definition of motivation, Motivation is the study of why people think and behave as they do, In the context of academic achievernent, ‘motivational concems would be addressed ifwe were toask, for ‘example, why some students complete tasks despite enormous difficulty, while others give up at the slightest provocation, ‘or why some students set such unrealistically high goals for themselves that failure is bound to occur. ‘Another way to capture the concept of motivation is to think about a typical achievement behavior, such as studying for an ‘examination, and to view it as a temporal sequence that is ‘sarted, sustained, directed, and finally terminated, Motivational psychologists would want to examine what the individual is ding, or the choice of behavior, how long i takes before an individual initiates the activity, or the lafency of behavior; how hard the person actually works at the activity, or the éntensity, of behavior, how long the individual is willing to remain atthe activity, or the persistence of behavior; and what the individual is thinking and feeling while engaged in the activity, or the cognitions and emotional reactions accompanying the behav- Jor. Note that tis is quite different from the study of learning, This chapter was writen while dhe authors were svpported by grant No. DKS-9211S82 from the National Science Foundation. 3 64. © COGNITION AND MOTIVATION. ‘which has to do with what has already been or is being formed. Educators sometimes confuse the goals of psychologists who study motivation with the goals of those who study learning, ‘With these definitional issues behind us, let us now turn 10 ‘what is meant by a theory of motivation. In what ways do theories differ from specific explanations or rules? And why should a theory of motivation provide beter (or worse) guide- lines for motivational augmentation than would a set of specific ‘explanations or rules? ‘We construc a theory to be a network of constructs, related, to one another by a precise set of rules, with some or all ‘of these constructs linked with an operational language. For ‘example, consider Clark Hull's drive theory of motivation (Hull, 1943, 1951. Although this conception no longer has great im pact in psychology, it was the most influential approach in the ‘decades from 1940 to 1960. In its simplest form, the theory ‘states that behavior is @ function of drive muliplied by habit: B= AD X HD. Thus, two constructs, drive and habit, are linked inva cleaey specified mathematical manner (multiplicative). Fur- thermore, drive is determined by Factors like hours of depriva- tion of a commodity necessary for survival, and habit by the number of times a response has been rewarded in a particular situation, Described inthis very incomplete manner, drive the- Cory meels some of the criteria necessary for a conception to be labeled as a shoory—mulkiple concepis, linked ina definitive ‘manner, and identified with observable indicators. ‘There are other differences between a theofy and a specific explanation in addition to the nomber of constructs involv and the preciseness oftheir postulated interrelations. A theory should be able to explain diverse phenomena across a range of disparate situations. That is, a scientific theory entails ‘eneral laws that transcend particular instances. For example, ‘when a layperson explains why one is drinking water, he or ‘she may state thatthe person is thirsty. A motivational engineer with the goal of inducing subsequent drinking behavior may deprive the person of water, offer this individual some salty peanuts, and the like, These motivational manipulations will surely “work,” ke,, increase the behavior that is desired. In a similar manner, when a person accounts for why another is eating, he or she i likely to explain that the person is hungry; ‘motivational engineers with the goal of increasing food con- sumption at a point in time surely will be able to establish conditions that heighten eating behavior, such as food depriva- tion, filling the room with a tantalizing édor, and 50 forth, Bat a motivational theorist, unlike the layperson or engineer, would attempt to use the same constructs and theory of action to interpret instances of hoth water intake and food consumption ‘The theorist might postulate, for example, that behavior is dt realy related to the amount of deprivation (whether water or food) and the level of arousal (whether induced by the eating of peanuts or by the aroma of food). Thus, the same concepts are applied to disparate motivational domains, and the analysis shifs from concrete instances to abstract issues involving the presence of any need. One ofthe goals of science isthe develop- ‘ment of such general explanatory principles. The objective is to develop a language, an explanatory system, 2 conceptual representation, or what is more commonly termed a theory, that {applicable across many domains of behavior and provides insights into accurate predictions about) why behavior is init ated, maincained, directed, and so forth, ‘The more abstract the language and the greater the general- fy, the “better” isthe theory. However, the Further one departs from the specitic instance under consideration, theless applica- ble isthe theory to a specific context. For example, stating that behavior is a function of amount of deprivation and level of, arousal does not provide the teacher with a clear set of engi- neering tools to alter performance inthe classroom In the long rn, it may indeed be the case, as the motivational psychologist Kurt Lewin (1936) stated, that “nothing is as practical as a good theory.” Butin the shor run, and when the science is as nascent as the field of motivation, then this epigram is not correct. In ! fact, there may be litle as impractical asa theory, and nothing asprictical asa good, concrete rule with litle generality beyond the issue being considered. Surely, for example, making a task inveresting will be a beter step toward increasing classroom ‘motivation than postulating that behavior is a function of drive % habit Ta spite ofthe above statoment, this chapter, should not be interpreted as opposed to theoretical development, for itis ‘writen by two theoretically created motivational poycholo- ists. Rather, it merely conveying reality (as we interpret {0 at this point in the maturation ofthe field of motivation. Funhermore, theories have goals and benefis other than the possibilty of application. The aim of theoretical understanding $sto beable to incorporate disparaté phenomena in as parsimo- ‘lous a manner 3s possible. Such conceptual systems are of ‘value with or without practical implicaons; and they allow for Amore complete understanding of human behaviorby grasping the core aspects of motivated action. HISTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THEORIES OF MOTIVATION Pe decopment of ther inte El tation has aedpamte ng det poet na. Ths pm to examining Both general theories afd specific principles of ‘motivation that have been proposed, we think iti beneficial to provide an overview ofthe growth and changes in this field of study. This allows us to introduce the theories and principles thatwe ater review by fist placing them in their broader histor cal context History isa constructive process Justas one can subscribe to different paychological theories, so one can advocate diferent historical interpretations of afield, Our construction of history should be understood as only one among a number of possible Viewpoints. Our intespretation was shaped by our training a5 experimentalists who Bélieve that principles ap- "plied fo the dlassroom should meet d ‘of science, This ‘Fiperymeorehaea dened enptal oc inwa theories that have been most subject to experimental testing (7 There have been a few major tends in the scientific study of motivation, which had its origin around 1930. First, and particularly germane to this chapter, there has been a general Shift from the creation of all-encompassing, biGad theories 0 toanssel gee "irony for tence pchologss ar ai er evans poy Chole, who fave wdrawa fom te prs of general conceptions of ber to 2 conadenion of theories of "THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVATION © 65 TABLE 4-1, Contents of the Chapters on Motivation in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1941-1990 PT. Youn M Man, ©. Weiner ‘Ball B. Weiner (1941 and 1950 (1360) 119691 1982) (0990) Need ond activity level Theories Theories ‘Atsibution theory Cogntions Appetite and aversion Techniques ‘Associative Achievement mativation Causal atuibutions Equllbium and homeostasis Drive and leaming Drive nwiety Sell-efficacy Chemical controls Drive end iustation Cognitive Self-esteem ‘Learned helplessness ‘Neural structures Activation of drives _Pryehoanalytle Curesty Individual differences Incentives and motives Topics Minor areas [Need for achievernent Defense mechanisms Reward Curiosity exploratory Level of aspiration Amaety about failure, Degree of motivation Knowledge of 1e- behavior) Afliation Locus of control Educational applications sults Afsiation Biochemical comelates _Attbutlonal style Prale and reproot Fear and analery Imbalance (dissonance) Reinforcement theory Environmental detern!- Success and fallure Arousal Frustration ants Knowledge of results Aggression Cooperation versuscom- Cooperation and compe- Relation to processes ‘ettion (goal tence Learning structure) Reward and punishment Perception Interac versus extinale Memory rewards Praise ‘oa: From “stay of motivational esearch in edbcaton” by. B Weiner Jour Ena Poy, 8.190, pp 16-022 achievement behavior and principles that might augment or theory, the preoccupations of educational psychologists were Inhibit achievement strivings, less clearly tied to any formal conceptions of motivation. “_A second trend in the field of motivation has been a shift Why were these the main fields of research when the scien- in the Types OF Biortes ance PICIFTES proposed, from those tific study of motivation was initiated? At firs, the experimental conceiving of the person as machinelike, without conscious analysis of motivation (the Latin root of motive means “to awareness or volition and controlled by environmental forces, move") was linked with the search for the motors of behavior to perceptions of individuals as rational scientiss,decisionmak- and was associated with mechanical concepts such as instinct, cers, information processors, self-determining, and having other drive, arousal, need, and energization. Motivational psycholo- characteristics associated with an active mind (see Weiner, gists inthe 1930s o 1950s were especially concerned with what 992) This change was par of the beter Known-general shit moved a resting organism to a state of activity. Accordingly, in psychology away rom mechanism and toward cognitive hungry rats were deprived of food and curious monkeys were | ‘views ofthe dynamics of behavior. placed in rooms without visual simulation. It was believed that ‘One way to document these and other tends inthe history a discrepancy between an ideal “of?” state and a less than ideal of the study of mouvation is to perform a content analysis of “on” sate e., the presence ofa need) would be detected by the the chapers on motivation in the standard source book, The organism and activity would be initiated until the disequilibrium Encyclopedia of Educational Research (see Weiner, 1990). This was reduced to zero (ic, homeostasis was attained). It was ‘volume has been published each decade, staring in 1941, and presumed tobe hedonic (pleasurable) tobe in state ofbalance, six chapters examine the motivation research conducted be- free of needs, and homeostatic mechanisms were believed to tween 1930 and 1990 CTable 4-1). be automatically activated to maintain this equilibrium, such as shivering when the organism was too cold and sweating when ‘The Mechanistic Period: 1930-1960 the organism was too wartn. Hence, researchers examined the effects of a varity of need states on a variety of indexes of ‘The first wo motivation chapters in the Eneyelopedia of — motivation, including speed of learning Bucattonal Research were writen by Paul Young (1941, 1950). __Theconcept ofadeprived organism living in an environment ‘Table 4-1 reveals that the major research concerns af ihe day of limited resources gave a functionals, Darwinian flavor to ‘were activity level,appelfesandaversions,homeostass,chem- the field of motivation, which berween 1930 and 1960 was ical controls and neutal structtes, incentives, defense mecha- dominated by Clark Hull and Kenneth Spence, the moving nisms, and degrees of motivation ihe Yerkes-Dodson law of forces behind dive theory. This foundation was far removed ‘offimal motivational level). These topics were primary asoc- from isues in the casstoom. Indeed, motivational theorists ted with dave theory, the 0K dominant. af heeacgabeones thought that human behavior was oo complex to siy drety ‘of motivation, This cOiiéepton is reviewed in greater detail and therefore not readily amenable to experimental manipula- iter if the chapter, Some specific concems of educational don, which at that point in history connoted deprivation of psychologists also were represented in the 19508 to 19508, something necessary for survival. Hence, another characteristic dure, knowledge inthe scudy of motvation during thisearly period wasareliance | # pet 68 nonhusan subjets, who could indeed be deprived. | Meluin Marx (1960), a the next Encyclopedia chapter, also 66 © COGNITION AND MOTIVATION linked motivation with energy and drive level. He examined the topics of dive and leaming, drive and frustration, activation, of drives, rewards, knowledge of results, fear and anxiety (which were learned drives), and arousal, all within the Hfull~ Spence tradition, and all with litle or no relevance to the con- ccems of educational psychologist ‘The Arrival of Cognition: 1960-1970 four theoretical approaches, dominated motivation: aociationstc theory Gohn Watson) deve theory- Ine i of NEO (997, 19a he clr related theo G93) and julian Roter (1958), all cfnese conceptions were known as expecany-ruetheases, | According to which mothtion i determined by what ne ex: eds to get and the licldiood that one wl et. This, cogn this were presumed wo lay Key rlem motted beac, Phe, it became acoepted that organisms ae always active ad, 25a result, the key dependent variables in mowation became choice and persience, indicators ofthe creation of tehuvor Pinal athough the scene goal remained the de- velopment of general motivational totes, imually the only testing ground for these theories was the contest of achieve trent ivings. Ths, a lopaty was seated berween the bread Objectives of the theories and thet narrow empinca focus ‘With, on the one hand, the waning of mechanism, dave, tev hotseotais 26 the lod of kivestigation and the gail deine in research using lower organi as subjects, and | on the cher hand the advent of eogntivism, rstonalperson metaphors achieverent ving and the tay of human mot ‘ation, there came anoermporant esearch decom, Aten tion shifted to the study of individual differences, with persons: Gharacerized ab high or low in acaererset neds, high or loin aie, high olow in internal conta and high or ow imoer characterises presumed oberon motvated acy For the sdcaionl peychologi interested i nda who petormed pooty i the classoom, tis Wis an import and 2 compute shit Contemporary Motivation Research: 1970-1990 ‘The next motivation chapter in the Encyclopedia of Bduca- sional Research was wriven by Samuel Ball (1952). The topics he covered included atuibution theory, achievement motiva- tion, anxiety, and, toa much lesser extent, level of aspiration, afiliation, biochemical correlates of motivation, and reinforce. ‘meat see Table 4-1). Balls chapter documented a continuation of the trends observed inthe 1960s, among them the continued decline of the broad theories proposed by Hull, Lewin, Atkin~ fonand Rote alta att thet asa wowing fle vas added o these general theories a Gven greater Tous Gat hhuman behavior, pariculaly achievement stvings; an increas- ing range of cognitions documented as having, motivational significance, ineluding causal asceiptons; and an enduring inter- cst in individual differences in achievement needs, anxiety about failure, and perceptions of control. During the 1970s, the study of nonhuman motivation (excluding the physiological mechanisms of hunger, thirst, and so forth) and the associated deve concept virwally vanished, not that many years afer the heyday of Hull and Spence. she 19905 the motivation topics include cognitions (e.g, > || cems about ability oi causal atrbutions, individual ferences in motivation need for achievemend) anc environmental influences on mot tation -., competiive is cooperative contexis). Because most of these topics are reviewed in the remainder of this chapter, we conclude this section on history withthe following. fener impressions: . 1, The sweeping theories have forthe most par faded away. ‘What remain are varieties of cognitive approaches to. motiva- tion. The main theoretical conceptions today are based on the {interrelated cogoivions of causal atributions, efficacy and con- trol beliefs, and thoughts about the goals toward which the subject is stving 2. Achievement desies remain atthe center of the study of ‘motivation. Thete aré pockets of research on power motivation, \ affiation, exploratory behavior, altruism, aggression, and other social motivations, but these are of secondary concern. AS al ready indicated, this orientation greatly limits the generality of | the theories that have been proposed. On the other hand, for those solely interested in classroom achievement suiving and ‘engineering goals, the lack of theoretical generality need not be of great concer, 3. Within the achievement field, new approaches are vying to share the dominance heretofore held by need for achieve- “nent and causal ascxiptions, These approsches embrace the linked concepts of task versus ego involvement, competitive ‘versus cooperative goal structures, and intrinsic versus extrin- sic rewards ‘Overview of the Remainder of the Chapter Bearing in mind these thoughts about theory definition (2 network of interrelated concepts linked with a data language) ‘and the history of motivational research (from broad mechanis tic theories to 2 mote specific focus on cognitive principles ‘germane to achievement stvings), we now turn to a review ‘of motivational theories and achievement related principles ‘The review first covers five general theories that have dom, nated the scientific sud of motivation: Hull's drive theory, Lewin's field theory, Atkinson's theory of achievement striving, Rotter’s social learning theory, and attribution theory as es poused by Heider, Kelley, and Weiner. Although some of these ‘broad theories no longer have great impact, they nonetheless spawned a number of contemporary constructs with Less ‘breadth but more relevance to classroom motivation. We then. ‘tum to six contemporary motivation constructs concerned with achievement stivings, Three constructs generally address con- absence: selt-worh, salceticacy, and helplessness beliefs. As willbe seen, these three constructs are, in par, the legacy of expectancy-value theories, The remaining three constructs we examine relate tothe cognitive and affective ‘consequences of different achievement goals. Under this broad, rubric we review research on task versus ego involvement, intrinsic versus extrinsic incentives, and cooperative versus ‘competitive goal structures, We conclude the chapter with a discussion of general issues in the study of motivation that we consider imporant for future research. GENERAL THEORIES OF MOTIVATION “The five general theories reviewed in this section are de: scribed in Table 4-2. We will rerum 10 a discussion of the THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVATION © 67 contrasting features of these theories in the section summary. For now, we suggest that the reader refer to Table 4-2 as each theory is presented. Hull's Drive Theory In the early 19906, there was ferment about the general laws ‘of mechanics, the notion that energy could be transformed in fa myriad of ways, It was in this atmosphere that Clark Hull an early robotic engineer, formulated his general theory of, ‘motivation and linked it with experimental psychology. It is ‘uncertain whether Hull should be credited with the formulation ‘of the first experimentally guided motivational theory, for both ‘ust Lewin (discussed nest in this chapter) and Edward Tolman ‘whose theory is not examined) were developing their concep- tions at about the same time as Hull. But there is no doubt that Hull was the first dominant motivational theorist in America Hullian theory was partiy derived from the laws of learning. ‘To explain learning, Hull accepted the well-known Law of Effect proposed by Thomdike (1911). That law states that when a stimulus-esponse bond is followed by a satisfying state of affairs, the strength of the bond increases. Conversely, when a ‘stimulus response bond is followed by an annoying state of affairs, the strength of the bond is weakened. Hull accepted that reinforcement provicied the necessary grounding for the csablishment of stimulus-response connections, which he la- beled abit. ‘The Drive Concept, Prior to Hull's work, motivational concepts ‘were used to explain 2 different set of phenomena than those focused on by leaming theonsts. The behaviors set aside for, ‘motivation were grouped under the term “instinctive,” the so- called inner urges that were striving for expression. However, inthe face of severe enticism, such as lack of agreement on how ‘many instincts there were and how they could be identified, the ‘use of instinct as an explanatory principle began to wane. It often happens in science, however, that a theory or construct does not die-—it is replaced, The concept of instinct was re placed by that of dive Hull (1943) suggested that it was a physiological deficit, or need, and not an instine, that instigated the organism 10 “underake behaviors that then resulted in the offset ofthe need. Stimulus-response linkages (habits) could provide the direction Dat not the energy required for action. According to Hull, for prior associations to be displayed, there had to be some unsats fied need that in turn produced a drive to action. Drive, then, resulted from physialogical disequiibsium and instigated be- haviors that returned the organism to a state of equilibrium. Furthermore, dive was considered to be a nondirective ener- sizer of behavior—any extant need would evoke whatever associative linkage was highest inthe organism's habit structure. In addition, Hull specified a mathematical relation between the drive (energy) and habit (direction) determinants of behav- jor such that Behavior Drive X Habit [Because the relationship is multiplicative, ifthere was no depr- vation (e.g, drive = 0), the organism would not act at all, no ‘matter how strong the habit. Thus, passivity indicated a satisied 68 © COGNITION AND MOTIVATION TABLE 4-2. Characteristics of the Theories of Motivation Motivation Theory “Aeibution: Fel Achievement: Social Learning Helder. Kelley, Lewin ‘Atkinson Rotter ‘Weiner 20-year time span 1940-60 1960-80 190-90 1970-90 Homeostasis, Yes No No No Mathematical model Yes Yes Yes No Individual Dit- None [Need achievement’ Locus of control None ference Focus and range Food and water depr- Task recall; con- Task cholee Expectancy in” Achievement, af ‘vation: learning flict aspiration shi vs. chance fect, helping level situations organism. Ifthe elation between drive and habie were additive, then, if there were many reinforcements for behavior (strong habid, that behavior would be undertaken even in the absence (of need. The behavior thea would not be functional, which ‘was a basic tenet of motivational approaches in Hull's era Hull's formulation generated a vast amount of research in such areas as conflict, frustration, fear, social facilitation, and cognitive dissonance (see reviews in Atkinson, 1964; Bolles, 1967; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Weiner, 1992). Many of dhe empiri cal investigations were undertaken to support one or more of the following assertions: 1. Drive energizes behavior. This was documented by demon- strating that without the presence of needs, behavior would ‘not he instiggted, 2, Drive and habit relate mukiplicatively. This was documented bby manipulating both variables and showing thei interactive effect on performance. 3. Drive is a pooled energy source. This was examined by varying two needs simultaneously and showing that they both activated the same response. Anxiety and Learning. among the mos novel and influential aspects of research guided by dave theory were studies that related anxiety level lezming, atopic of particular relevance tw educational psychologists. Spence (1958) and his colleagues contended that scores on aa anxiety scale could be used t0 infer deve level, for ansity, lke need, was considered an aversive stimulus, These researchers then applied the dive X habit conception othe leaming ofscaple and complex verbal tasks. A simple tsk is one in which the correct response is dominant ia. the person's response hierarchy. An example ‘would be a paired associates task where day’is the correct response othe stimulus word nigh. although individuals have been expoted to many associations involving the word day, the association with migbr has probably occured more often and thus has the greatest habit strength. According ro Spence, anxiety energizes the comect response fo 2 greater extent than it evokes the incorrect response, and therefore increases the speed of learning. Thus, am increase inthe level of drive ans- #9) should result in faster leaning and fewer erors. ‘With complex tasks, on the other band, dive theorists hy pothesized thatthe heightening of dave would interfere with performance. A complex task i one in which there are many ‘competing response tendencies, all of which are relatively weak. in hat stength. The effect of high anxiety as an energizer is to increase the strength of many incorrect tendencies, thereby interfering with the correct response tendency. An interaction, is therefore predicted berween drive level and performance on, ‘easy and complex tasks. Given an easy task, individuals high In anxiety (drive) would be expected to perform better than those low in anxiety. Given a dificult task, in contrast, those: high in anxiety would be expected to perform worse. ‘Empirical studies conducted by Spence and his colleagues ‘generally supported the interaction predicted by drive theory (Gee Spence, 1958), Thus, general laws of motivation based inilly on animal research were successfully applied to predict the speed of human learning. This was indeed an impressive accomplishment, ‘The main contribution of drive theory wasthe systematicand precise exploration of motivated behavior from a mechanistic perspective. Drive theorists provided an exemplar forthe scien- Luficand experimental study of motivation. They carefully identi- fied the determinants of behavior, specified their relations, cre- ated a mathematical model, and deduced predictions from that, model that were tested in carefully controlled laboratory set- tings. This theory did not generate suggestions to increase class- room performance, but instead addressed the fundamental laws of motivation, Lewin's Field Theory Like Hull's drive conception, Kurt Lewin's field theory lour- ished during the 25-year period between 1935 and 1960. Lewin was guided by basic principles of Gestalt psychology. The Ge- ‘salts argued that 2 behavioral “field,” lke physical and per- ‘ceptual fields, would "seek" an arrangement of simplicity and goodness," as illusurated in the symmetical shape assumed by a drop of oll in water, the perception ofa circle when such, 4 shape is not fully closed, and the perception of faces as symmetrical when, infact, they are not The Gestalists observed that if a point of light was presented in a dark context, the eye would be drawn to it A tension would arise in the visual feld, ‘and some action would be taken to reduce this tension. Kurt Koff (1935), a leading Gesalt psychologis, stated: "Theoret cally, there is no difference between eye movements and such ‘movements of the whole body as are executed in order, say, to quench one's thirst” (p. 626). A person attaining a goal corresponds to a simple figure, the Gestalists sugaested. ‘The language of Gestalt psychology, developed primarily to account for perceptual phenomena, was adopted by Lewin for the intezpretation of motivated behavior. Known as field theory, Lewin's basic theoretical statement held that behavior is determined by both the person (P) and the environment (E): Behavior = (2, ED According 10 Lewin, the motivational force on the person to reach an environmental goal is determined by three factors: tension (B, or the magnitude of a need; valence (G), or the properties of the geal object; and the psychological distance ‘ofthe petson from the goal Gepresented by the leter &. Spe- ‘ically, Force = ft, Ge Each ofthese factors and their interrelations have specificmean- {ngs in Lewinian terms. When a person experiences a need, desire, of intent, he of she is in a state of tension (). For ‘example, hunger produces slate of tension in the individual, who is then directed toward the goal of eating. Once the goal 's atained, tension is eliminated. But for Lewin, needs are not, related omy t0 bodily functions and survival. The intent 10, ‘complete 2 task oF to solve a problem produces similar states, ‘of tension, Goals (@) become ariactive, thats, acquire positive valence, tothe extent that they can satisfy needs. For example, ifoneis hungry, the sight of sumptuous meal acquires postive valence, as does locating a misplaced book if one's need is 10 find this lost objec. Note also that in Lewin's formula, the psychological distance of the person from the goal (@) is in- ‘versely related to the magnitude of motivation. Thus, the closer fone is to the goal (ie, € approaches 0), the greater is the mouivational force. This Lewinian principle is illustrated, for example, by the tired disance runner who sprints when the finish line isin sight, ot by the reader who is totally engrossed fm the final chapter of an engaging novel Few theoretical approaches have been as fruitful as Lewinian theory. Among the diverse motivational phenomena examined are frustration (which was shown to result in regressive behav= {or}; substitution (the replacing of one goal with another when the initially desired goal could not be atained); and level of, aspiration (which tends to increase afer success and decrease afir falure), Here we focus on two motivational phenomena thar luscate the application of Lewinian principles: conflict and task recall Conflict. Imagine a situation in which a student receives an academic prize in the form of a monetary award. The rules stipulate thatthe prize can be either a $10,000 cash stipend or applied toward payment of tuition and fees for the next aca- demic year, The stuclent must decide how she wants the award allocated. In Lewinian terms, this represents an approach- approach conflict: The person must choose between two atrac- tive (postively valenced goals. Lewin regards such conflicts as relatively unstable and easily resolvable. For example, a simple change in cognition e.g, "Idon't want to have to worry about tuition next year") can alter the relative attractiveness of the rwo goals, thus motivating the individual to move toward the more attractive alternative. ‘THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVATION @ 69 In contrast, consider a situation in which a child is told by his teacher that he must remain in the classroom either during recess of immediately after lunch as punishment for classroom ‘misbehavior. This depiets an avoidance-avoidance coaflictinas- ‘muchas the choices are between two negatively valenced alter- natives. Lewin argued that avoidanceavoidance conflicts are less easly resolvable than approach-approach conflicts. As one ‘approaches one of the aversive alternatives, the tendency to avoid that goal becomes even stronger. Thus the individual vill vacillate between the two undesirable altematives. Lewin's hypotheses have been supported in experimental studies docu- ‘menting longer response latencies implying more contlicd for avoidance avoidance than for approach-approach hypothet: cal conflcs. Task Recall. Lewin's student, Bloma Zeigamik (1927), docu: ‘mented that people are more likely to remember tasks that they are not allowed to complete than those that are completed. labeled the Zeigarnik effect, the greater recall of unfinished ‘tasks derives from Lewin's conception of tension. The person's, desire to reach a goal such as solving a set of anagrams corres- ponds ta state of tension, This tension leads not only to actual ‘movement toward the goal, but also to thoughts about that, ‘goal. If the goal is not reached—for example, if the task is interrupted-—the tension persists, as do thoughts about the ‘goal. Hence, thete is greater recall of unfinished than finished tasks, Although subsequent experimental studies called into ‘question the robustness of the Zeigamik effect (see Weiner, 1972), the predictions are unique to Lewin's formulation and are ‘not readily explainable within other motivational frameworks. Summary. Lewinians conceptualized motivation in terms of tensions thar move the individual toward goals of varying psy- chological distance. Hullians conceptualized the same phenom- cena in terms Of drive level and habit strength. Even though their motvational formulas are different, both Lewin and Hull reached similar conclusions about what determines motivated, behavior: needs of the person (drive or tension), properties of the goal object incentives), and a disectional variable habit, ff psychological distance). Further, both advocated that the {goal of motivational theory is to identiy the determinants of behavior and specify their mathematical relationships. Unlike drive theorists, however, Lewinians were concerned almost exclusively with complex human behavior as opposed to the behavior of nonhuman organisms. In addition, whereas drive theorists excelled in demonstrating how motivational theorists ‘ought to function as experimenters, conducting well-controlled laboratory investigations, the main contribution of the field theorists was in pointing out the broader goals of a theory of motivation, using whatever experimental methods were avail- able, Few conceptions have been able to incorporate the breach of motivational phenomena addressed by field theory Expectancy-Value Theories Studies conducted by Tolman and his colleagues during the 1930s (see Tolman, 1932) suggested that animals learn expec tancies—what will follow if and when a panicular response is smude—rather than specific habits. In motivational theories, the concept of expectancy slowly began to replace the concept of 70 © coGNON AND MOTIVATION tabitin descriptions ofthe learning proces, achange consistent ‘with the more general cognitive emphasis being exhibited by Jeaming theorists. The concept of drive also came under increas jing sensing. As the belief that organisms are always active ‘ined acceptance, the eld of matvation shifted from the study | of whar tums organisms “oa! or “of” to an interest in the { direction of behavior, or what choices are made Ths shift ed ‘to increased attention being paid to incentives, as well a8 to ‘expectancies, which Tolman had documented as necessary for performance. ‘The growing recognition of expectancies and incentives as determinants of motivation resulted in what is known as expec: tancy value theory. The basc assumptions of expectancy-ale {theory are in accom! with commonsense thinking about mot vated behavior: What behavior is undertaken depends on the Percelved likelihood that the behavior will lad to the goal, | and on the subjecive value of tha goal, Purthermore, fs {assumed thaatany given moment individuals ae faced with an aray of alternative goals, each of which has ifs own subjective lketinood of atainment and assigned value. The expectancies J and values are combined to yield a meoiivational tendency, the strongest motivational valve “wins,” that i, is expressed in acion Expectancy-value theory was adopted by John Atkinson and Julian Roter, the next (wo theorists to be examined, ‘Their theories dominated the study of motivation for neatly 20 years, from the early 19608 up to about 1960 Atkinson's Theory of Achievement Motivation. Like Hull and Lewin, Atkinson (1957, 1964) attempted ta isolate the determi- ‘ants of behavior and then to specify the mathematical relations between the gomponents of his theory. However, Atkinson

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai