Talk:Motivation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

WikiProject Echo has identified Motivation as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Proposing further text 2 Questionable text 3 Questions and edits 4 Structure of Article 5 Proposed Merge 6 Introductory quote 7 Base motive

[edit] Proposing further text

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

[edit] Questionable text

From the main text :

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

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

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

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

[edit] Questions and edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nesbit 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Structure of Article

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

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

I will insert this here to agree with Clebo that the article looks like a box of stuff in search of a structure, which is needed for others to pitch in on the writing. For comparison, the article on Cognition seems pretty much limited to a current academic treatment. Would the following be a friendly amendment to Clebo's suggested outline above? General definition; history of the idea (compact, maybe a way to deal briefly with some of the stuff in the box); current conceptions (with Clebo's suggested trio of biological, cognitive, and social theories); and uses (as those tend to vary in lingo, context, import, etc.). Definition and history for the general user, academically current in the middle, with uses for people who come to the page with that in mind. The following comment and table of contents were entered by Clebo with the message above Tombird 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Building on your idea, how about this simple top-level structure as a starting point?

• Lead
• History of the concept
• Biological theories
• Cognitive theories
• Social theories
• Applications

Also, I suggest that we fairly ruthlessly move much of the older, less academic and non-verified material into an archive section on this page. Or is there a better way to archive it?

Nesbit 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

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

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

Yeah, I could try it, if I have the time. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory quote

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

Do you have a source? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not a direct quote but its paraphrased from chapter 6 of Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which quote? I was referring to your proposed change. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

As I asked above, where are you getting this definition? Do you have a source for what you just said in the latter paragraph? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 10:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this definition is not adequate. It supports one viewpoint of motivation (that it is extrinsic/intrinsic). Some people do not share this view. For example, some think that motivation is driven by goals. (Of course, you can fit that into the extrinsic/intrinsic viewpoint, but that's beside the point.) — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add ARCS motivational theory

[edit] Base motive

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