Pocketbook: The Theory of Motivation

﻿1.0 Introduction

2.0 General Theories of Cognition

2.1 Edward Thorndike 1911, Law of Effect

2.2 John Broadus Watson 1913, Classical Conditioning

2.3 Burrhus Frederic Skinner 1938, Operant Conditioning

3.0 General Theories of Motivation

3.1 Abraham Maslow 1943, Hierarchy of Needs

3.2 Douglas Murray McGregor 1960, Theory X and Theory Y

3.3 David McClelland 1961, Acquired Needs Theory

3.4 Frederick Irving Herzberg 1964, Two Factor Theory

3.5 Victor H. Vroom 1964, Expectancy Theory

3.6 John Stacy Adams 1965, Equity Theory

3.7 Clayton Alderfer 1969, ERG Theory

4.0 References





1.0 Introduction

The etymology of the word ‘motivate’ descends from Old French motif, from late Latin motivus, from movere ‘to move’ in the 1800’s. Motivation is a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way. In the early stages of research in psychology, psychologists began introducing theories to explain the underlying behaviors in motivation and learning. Looking forward to explain the dynamism of behavior of organisms with respect to cause and effect relationships.

To understand motivation and the underlying properties governing perceptive and reactive capacity, an introductory binary model of intellectual reasoning will stimulate the rationale.

Cerebral is the behavioral capacity of the living neurons to deviate from the basic properties of the natural settings. It is common among humans and animals sharing the cerebral reasoning. The reasoning structure is closely adjacent to the biological and the survival characteristics of the living cells. Therefore the propensities are generic and the deviations of behavior are naturally traceable to intrinsic and unconscious properties.

One of the behavioral metrics of cerebral reasoning is the nonverbal communication structures, pertaining to body language. Perceptive and Reactive mechanisms are solely based on discreet automatic linear processing.

Cortextual is the behavioral capacity to perceive and intercept higher levels of thought entertaining tactical and strategic processing of implicit and explicit objects in a governing context. The Cortextual properties are more closely adjacent to the psychological and the neurological propensities and characteristics of the living beings. The behavioral propensities are psychologically traceable to extrinsic and conscious properties which are implicit derivatives of intrinsic and unconscious properties.

Perceptive and Reactive mechanisms are based on continuous manual nonlinear processing. Frames of Mind A Theory by Howard Gardner in 1993 will explain the rationale governing Cortextual reasoning.

2.0 General Theories of Cognition

2.1 Edward Thorndike 1911, Law of Effect

2.2 John Broadus Watson 1913, Classical Conditioning

2.3 Burrhus Frederic Skinner 1938, Operant Conditioning





2.1 Edward Thorndike 1911, Law of Effect

One of the early psychologists Edward Thorndike understood that the presence of a satisfying effect will more likely produce the observed behavior and the unsatisfying effects will less likely produce the observed behavior. He therefore introduced the theory of the Law of Effect in 1911 presenting the phenomena. The law of effect simply state that in case of satisfying the presence of a need positively, the original behavior of satisfying the need occurs again, and in case of suppressing the presence of a need negatively, the behavior that led to suppression will less likely to occur again.

Thorndike designed an instrumental experiment to observe the behavioral tendencies of animals “Cats” with respect to cause and effect, the idea was to put a cat into a puzzle box “Cause” leaving a reward “Scrap of Fish” for solving it “Effect” outside the box and observed the time it took the animal to resolve the obstacle to escape and set itself free to utilize the reward. Thorndike noticed that given a set of trails the time to escape the box is noticeably decreasing. Therefore the conclusion governing the Thorndike experiment does not only imply association, but also the propensity of learning by consequential reasoning.

2.2 John Broadus Watson 1913, Classical Conditioning

John Broadus Watson a Russian psychologist presented the idea of classical conditioning involving the study of involuntary behavior in 1913 which he denied completely the presence of mind or consciousness which utilizes the cerebral reasoning structure, also known as Pavlovian or Respondent conditioning. The natural behavior of the living neurons is association. The fundamental reasoning structure is to associate implicit or explicit objects, patterns and phenomena Unconditional Stimulus to implicit or explicit response or responses Unconditional Response in a governing context Neutral Stimulus through frequency, magnitude and effect. Therefore if a particular object, pattern or phenomena lead to a positive effect, a positive behavior occurs and a fundamental association takes place through frequency, magnitude and effect until extinction or exhaustion.

On the other hand, if an object, pattern or phenomena lead to a negative effect, a negative behavior occurs and a fundamental negative association takes place through frequency, magnitude and effect until redemption. An important concept to note is the natural ability of the brain to conduct emotional and intellectual generalizations, John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted an associative experiment on a little boy Douglas Merritte in 1920 called the Little Albert Experiment.

The experiment was aiming to associate a Neutral Stimulus “White Rat” with a Unconditional Response “Fear” through a Unconditional Stimulus “Loud Noise”, Through frequency and magnitude the boy associated the nonrecognition and fear of the contextual properties Loud Noise with the White Rat, so every time the boy encounters the White Rat the boy starts crying. The boy not only reacts to White Rats with fear, but also to a wide variety of similar objects. The structure being utilized is the cerebral reasoning which is the state of mind where variables are manipulated in a plug and play terminology without criticism or intellectual dissection.

The fundamentals observed throughout the experiment are that the brain is naturally set to conclude associations among implicit or explicit objects, patterns or phenomena through frequency and magnitude under a governing context, and the brain is also naturally set to conclude implicit or explicit generalizations that are derivatives of the original observations until Cortextual intervention is applied. The behavior is essentially natural and is traceable to survival instincts. In the case of cerebral reasoning, classical conditioning pertaining fundamental associations will be a straightforward process. On the other hand engaging in multiple transitive stimuli will require Cortextual reasoning pertaining to a set of dependent or independent stimuli leading discretely or randomly, implicitly or explicitly to a particular effect or response.

2.3 Burrhus Frederic Skinner 1938, Operant Conditioning

Burrhus Skinner is an American psychologist, behaviorist and social philosopher, pioneering the concept of operant conditioning through the use of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment which deals with voluntary behaviors which he emphasized on the existence of mind and consciousness which utilizes the Cortextual reasoning structure. In this case the behavioral characteristics will be governed by instrumental conditioning, where behaviors intended to be repeated will be positively or negatively reinforced.

Operant or instrumental conditioning elucidate reinforcement and punishment properties to ensure validity and reliability of behavioral shaping. Satiation and Deprivation where the use of a satiated inducement will less likely to shape if not at all the behavior, on the contrary the use of a deprived inducement will more likely to shape the behavior, Immediacy where the behavior is more likely to be shaped through the use of instantaneous feedback, Contingency which is the consistency and reliability of the behavioral modifier whether reinforcing or punishing appearing homogeneously each and every time the behavior occurs and size which refers to the worthiness of the behavioral modifier.

Operant or instrumental conditioning introduce the concept of operant variability, where the response topography may deviate from one performance to another, arguing that homogeneous deviations are more likely to converge than heterogeneous deviations.

Reinforcement is the addition of a favorable stimulus following a favorable response which is intended to increase the likelihood of behavioral observation and repetition and Punishment is the removal of a stimulus following an unfavorable response which is intended to decrease the behavioral observation and to suppress repetition.

Positive reinforcement is increasing the probability of a behavioral observation through adding a favorable inducement, Negative reinforcement is increasing the probability of a behavioral observation through removing an unfavorable inducement.

The child is more likely to learn honesty each and every time the parents reward the behavior with a favorable candy or a trip to the park.

The child is more likely to learn honesty each and every time the parents tend to protect and defend the child from social criticism.

Positive punishment is decreasing the probability of a behavioral observation through adding an aversive inducement. Negative punishment is decreasing the probability of a behavioral observation through removing a favorable inducement.

The child is less likely to lie each and every time the parents confront the lies and expose the truth.

The child is less likely to lie each and every time the parents take away his favorable belongings.

3.0 General Theories of Motivation

3.1 Abraham Maslow 1943, Hierarchy of Needs

3.2 Douglas Murray McGregor 1960, Theory X and Theory Y

3.3 David McClelland 1961, Acquired Needs Theory

3.4 Frederick Irving Herzberg 1964, Two Factor Theory

3.5 Victor H. Vroom 1964, Expectancy Theory

3.6 John Stacy Adams 1965, Equity Theory

3.7 Clayton Alderfer 1969, ERG Theory





3.1 Abraham Maslow 1943, Hierarchy of Need

The concept of the Hierarchy of Human Motivation began in the late 1940’s by an American psychologist Abraham Harold Maslow through his research A Theory of Human Motivation in 1943. The theory introduced a structural sequential definition of physiological and psychological variables considered to be motivational factors of the living beings.

Level A, Primitive, Unconscious, Physiology

Level B, Elementary, Conscious and Unconscious, Physiology and Psychology

Level C, Tactical, Conscious, Psychology

The primitive physiological structures are common among humans and animals alike. The primitives are structures that are adjacent to the physiology of the body, sensitive to the chemistry and the interoperability of the biology of body organs. Interacting with the very basic foundations of life.

Physiological, Breathing, Food, Water, Sex, Sleep

The elementary level Safety structures interact with the basic foundations of self and social interactivity. The elementary level is also common among humans and animals.

Safety, Security of Body, Resources, Mortality, Family, Health and Property

The tactical level psychological structures that are more adjacent to the human beings. Given the higher complexity of the human brains and the neurological propensities and heterogeneity with respect to animals, the tools and techniques by which humans are utilizing are way more tactical than those utilized by animals. Which contribute to the foundations of human psychology and more specifically social psychology. As high and strategic the tools and techniques might seem, the needs that are to be fulfilled are the same, the ways of acquisition are different.

Belonging, Friendship, Family and Sexual Intimacy

Esteem, Self Esteem, Confidence, Achievement and Respect

Self-Actualization, Morality, Creativity, Spontaneity, Problem Solving, Lack of Prejudice, Acceptance of Facts

Understanding the model lead to two further classifications.

Natural Constant Intrinsic : The natural propensities which are considered constant with narrow variations and transparently homogeneous among each and every living being. The Physiological and the Safety needs which are closely adjacent to the biological nature.

: The natural propensities which are considered constant with narrow variations and transparently homogeneous among each and every living being. The Physiological and the Safety needs which are closely adjacent to the biological nature. Evolutionary Variable Extrinsic: The evolutionary propensities are more closely adjacent to the environmental, contextual and cultural nature. The overall deviations and variability are extremely evident in varying societal hierarchical and structural properties. The Belonging, Esteem and Self Actualization which are more closely adjacent to the psychological nature.





3.2 Douglas Murray McGregor 1960, Theory X and Theory Y

The theory provides two contrasting models of organizational motivation, it interacts with the preferences and tendencies of individuals towards organizational productivity and performance. Douglas McGregor introduced the Theory X and Theory Y. The theory interprets the propensity of organizational individuals with respect to:

Perception of work

Attitude toward responsibility

Attitude toward Innovation

Ability to control

Theory X “traditional view of direction and control” that deals with individuals that are sought to be inherently lazy and naturally unmotivated. Which consequently encourages an authoritarian or an autocratic style of management, a style involving coercion and threat, close supervision and tight controls over behaviors. The theory interacts with fulfilling the basic needs of individuals to ensure productivity which is more closely adjacent to intrinsic and cerebral reasoning properties.

Physiological, Breathing, Food, Water, Sex, Sleep

Safety, Security of Body, Resources, Mortality, Family, Health and Property

Theory Y “the integration of individual and organizational goals” that deals with individuals that are sought to be ambitious, self-directed and capable of self-motivation and self-control. Which encourages a participative style of management, a style involving collaboration, cohesiveness and achievement of harmony. Introducing decentralization and delegation, job enlargement and participative management leading to creativity, innovation and productivity. The theory interacts with higher levels of needs of individuals to ensure continuity. Which is more closely adjacent to extrinsic and Cortextual reasoning properties.

Belonging, Friendship, Family and Sexual Intimacy

Esteem, Self Esteem, Confidence, Achievement and Respect

Self-Actualization, Morality, Creativity, Spontaneity, Problem Solving, Lack of Prejudice, Acceptance of Facts





3.3 David McClelland 1961, Acquired Needs Theory

The achievement need theory was introduced by David McClelland in his publication The Achieving Society in 1961, the theory simply states that individual’s motivational attributes can be classified into three broad categories, namely striving for achievement, striving for authority and power and striving for affiliation, one of the attributes will be a dominating motivational factor. And according to McClelland these motivators are learned and tend to have demographical and cultural transparency.

Achievement MotivationmAch Individuals observe motivational tendencies with a high degree of independence with significance and quality and have strong urges to undertake innovative and engaging tasks and goals, looking forward to new and challenging opportunities and responsibilities and are thirsty receptors of regular feedback. Seek neither power nor approval and often tend to work alone and enjoy freedom of thought. Achievement is of far more importance than materialism, financial rewards, security and status, always on the run of seeking continual improvements and better ways of doing things through creativity and innovative thinking. Authoritative and Power MotivationmPow Individuals exhibit strong urges to competitiveness, influence and control, enjoying status and recognition. Individuals with power motivational dominance can be classified into two groups, personal and institutional. Individuals with personal power dominance tend to take control of others, on the contrary individuals with institutional power dominance tend to organize the efforts of teams to increase productivity and performance. Tend to favor continual increase of personal status and prestige. Affiliation MotivationmAff Individuals have strong urges to belong and value group conformity, obedience, friendliness, harmoniousness and cohesiveness and always on the run to be liked and favor collaboration over competition and work best in cooperative environments and dislike high risk and uncertainty.

3.4 Frederick Irving Herzberg 1964, Two Factor Theory

Fredrick Herzberg an American psychologist introduced a binary model of hygienic and motivational concept of variables in 1964, the concept elucidates the foundations of satisfactory and unsatisfactory derivatives. The satisfactory derivatives are adjacent to intrinsic properties with respect to recognition, responsibility, achievement and personal growth which in turn increases the motivational energy and elasticity of organizational individuals.

The unsatisfactory derivatives are adjacent to extrinsic properties with respect to policy, compensation and benefits, workplace conditions and security which in turn increase frustration and displeasure of organizational individuals.

The theory states that there are distinct and unique variables contributing to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that tackling one category over the other will not suffice. Incorporating a proper structure of motivation while neglecting an improper structure of workplace hygiene will not be a sufficient nor an efficient mixture since there will be always be many obstacles and hurdles for individuals to interact and bear with.

A practical methodology to optimizing a business culture and infrastructure is to balance the perception and the interoperability of both intrinsic and extrinsic structures.

3.5 Victor H. Vroom 1964, Expectancy Theory

Victor Vroom elucidates motivation through the use of a structured pattern of behavior, where the degree and magnitude of motivation is the product of Valence the psychological perception of the attractiveness and appeal of the reward, Expectancy is the projection and belief that high productivity yields high performance and Instrumentality is the belief of the validity of the cause and effect relationship with respect to Valence and Expectancy.

The theory concentrates on elucidating the cause and effect relationships governing the motivational force of an individual with respect to the likelihood of recognizing performance with an intrinsic or an extrinsic reward as a consequence of productivity. An implicit derivative of Edward Thorndike Law of Effect elucidates that individuals will endure an action or a set of actions pursuing a highly likely intrinsic or extrinsic reward. If the cat learns that each time the scrap of fish is taken away the moment of escape, the scrap of fish will no longer be a binding motivator.

But if the scrap of fish is a pleasing reward, and the cat is knowledgeable and capable of escaping the box, and the scrap of fish is reachable and accessible each and every time upon escape, the cat will always perceive the scrap of fish as a binding motivator and will always be sufficient to ensure learning and endurance until exhaustion. Therefore if a reward is intrinsically or extrinsically motivating and sufficient knowledge and resources are available and an authentic belief of acquisition is present, high performance is highly likely to be observed, on the other hand low performance is highly likely to be observed.

3.6 John Stacy Adams 1965, Equity Theory

John Adams a behavioral and a workplace psychologist developed the equity theory in 1965 what is also considered a justice theory. The concept integrates a efforts and rewards ratio of individuals as a reference to a balancing equilibrium that justifies an individual’s perceptive ratio of efforts and rewards with respect to the referent others perceptive ratio of efforts and rewards.

The efforts commonly embrace dedication, commitment and loyalty and the rewards commonly embrace tangible and intangible recognition, reputation, responsibility, praise and security. The idea is to probe the legitimacy of weights of productivity, performance with respect to recognition.

It is all about measuring the worthiness of performing an action or a set of actions through a variety of performance scales with respect to a worthy reward or rewards. If a variety of performance and productivity scales are weighted equally likely to reach to a reward or a set of rewards, people will highly likely to withdraw or in case unfeasible will naturally downgrade to the least scale of efforts to ensure justice which will in turn suppress creativity and innovation and raise conflicts.

With reference to Burrhus Skinner’s operant or instrumental conditioning, the absence of justice is an implicit punishment for performance and productivity. The motivational force is therefore a function of referential equity and structural legitimacy with respect to weights of cause and effect against a standard minority or majority. People are highly likely to absorb motivation when their fairly and advantageously treated.

3.7 Clayton Alderfer 1969, ERG Theory

The theory is adjacent to Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs introduced back in the 1943, Alderfer classified the structure into three classifications of motivational elements existence, relatedness and growth.

It states that individuals can be motivated by any of the levels at any given time and not necessarily in a sequential or a strict progression matter. It acknowledges variations of individual and circumstantial changes in prioritizing and satisfying needs, as individuals may set higher priorities to any of the motivational classifications at varying stages of their lives. It also provides a frustration progression element which states that individuals will pursue low level needs in case high level needs remain unsatisfied.

4.0 References