assignment on motivation theories

20 Most Popular Theories of Motivation in Psychology

The many approaches to defining what drives human behavior are best understood when considering the very purpose of creating them, be it increased performance, goal pursuit, resilience, or relapse prevention, to name a few.

There is nothing more practical than a good theory.

There is no single motivation theory that explains all aspects of human motivation, but these theoretical explanations do often serve as the basis for the development of approaches and techniques to increase motivation in distinct areas of human endeavor.

This article briefly summarizes existing theories of motivation and their potential real-world applications.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains:

What is motivation psychology, theories of motivation, content theories of motivation, process theories of motivation, cognitive theories of motivation, motivational theories in business, motivational theories in sports psychology, textbooks on motivation, a take-home message.

Motivation psychologists usually attempt to show how motivation varies within a person at different times or among different people at the same time. The purpose of the psychology of motivation is to explain how and why that happens.

Broad views of how to understand motivation were created by psychologists based on various types of analyses. Cognitive analyses, behavioral anticipation, and affective devices are often used to account for motivation in terms of expecting an end-state or goal.

Motivation psychology is a study of how biological, psychological, and environmental variables contribute to motivation. That is, what do the body and brain contribute to motivation; what mental processes contribute; and finally, how material incentives, goals, and their mental representations motivate individuals.

Psychologists research motivation through the use of two different methods. Experimental research is usually conducted in a laboratory and involves manipulating a motivational variable to determine its effects on behavior.

Correlational research involves measuring an existing motivational variable to determine how the measured values are associated with behavioral indicators of motivation.

Whether you think you can, or think you can’t, you’re right.

Henry Ford, 1863–1947

To be motivated means to be moved into action. We are induced into action or thought by either the push of a motive or the pull of an incentive or goal toward some end-state. Here a motive is understood as an internal disposition that pushes an individual toward a desired end-state where the motive is satisfied, and a goal is defined as the cognitive representation of the desired outcome that an individual attempts to achieve.

While a goal guides a behavior that results in achieving it, an incentive is an anticipated feature of the environment that pulls an individual toward or away from a goal. Incentives usually enhance motivation for goal achievement. Emotions act like motives as well. They motivate an individual in a coordinated fashion along multiple channels of affect, physiology, and behavior to adapt to significant environmental changes.

See our discussion of the motivation cycle and process in the blog post entitled What is Motivation .

In short, content theories explain what motivation is, and process theories describe how motivation occurs.

There are also a large number of cognitive theories that relate to motivation and explain how our way of thinking and perceiving ourselves and the world around us can influence our motives.

From self-concept, dissonance and mindset to values, orientation and perceived control, these theories explain how our preference toward certain mental constructs can increase or impair our ability to take goal-directed action.

Theories of motivation are also grouped by the field of human endeavor they apply to. Several theories relate to motivating employees where incentives and needs take a central stage as well as theories used in sports and performance psychology where affect is considered a more prominent driver of human behavior. Some of these theories are also applied to education and learning.

Read our insightful post on motivation in education .

The self-concordance model of goal setting differentiates between four types of motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). These are:

External motivation

Goals are heavily guided by external circumstances and would not take place without some kind of reward or to prevent a negative outcome.

For example, an individual who clocks extra hours in their day job purely to receive a bigger paycheck.

Introjected motivation

Goals are characterized by self-image or ego-based motivation, reflecting the need to keep a certain self-image alive.

For example, our worker in the example above staying longer in the office so that they are perceived as a ‘hard worker’ by their manager and co-workers.

Identified motivation

The actions needed to accomplish the goal are perceived as personally important and meaningful, and personal values are the main drivers of goal pursuit.

For example, the worker putting in extra hours because their personal values align with the objective of the project they are working on.

Intrinsic motivation

When a behavior is guided by intrinsic motivation, the individual strives for this goal because of the enjoyment or stimulation that this goal provides. While there may be many good reasons for pursuing the goal, the primary reason is simply the interest in the experience of goal pursuit itself.

For example, the worker spends more time at their job because they enjoy and are energized by using their skills in creativity and problem-solving.

Goals guided by either identified or intrinsic motivation can be considered self-concordant. A self-concordant goal is personally valued, or the process towards the goal is enjoyable and aligns with interests. Self-concordant goals are associated with higher levels of wellbeing, enhanced positive mood, and higher levels of life satisfaction compared to non-self-concordant goals.

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory, McClelland’s achievement motivation theory, and Herzberg’s two-factor theory focused on what motivates people and addressed specific factors like individual needs and goals.

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs

The most recognized content theory of motivation is that of Abraham Maslow, who explained motivation through the satisfaction of needs arranged in a hierarchical order. As satisfied needs do not motivate, it is the dissatisfaction that moves us in the direction of fulfillment.

Needs are conditions within the individual that are essential and necessary for the maintenance of life and the nurturance of growth and well-being. Hunger and thirst exemplify two biological needs that arise from the body’s requirement for food and water. These are required nutriments for the maintenance of life.

The body of man is a machine which winds its own spring.

J. O. De La Mettrie

Competence and belongingness exemplify two psychological needs that arise from the self’s requirement for environmental mastery and warm interpersonal relationships. These are required nutriments for growth and well-being.

Needs serve the organism, and they do so by:

• generating wants, desires, and strivings that motivate whatever behaviors are necessary for the maintenance of life and the promotion of growth and well-being, and
• generating a deep sense of need satisfaction from doing so.

Maslow’s legacy is the order of needs progressing in the ever-increasing complexity, starting with basic physiological and psychological needs and ending with the need for self-actualization. While basic needs are experienced as a sense of deficiency, the higher needs are experienced more in terms of the need for growth and fulfillment.

Alderfer’s ERG theory

Alderfer’s theory of motivation expands on the work of Maslow and takes the premise of need categories a bit further. He observes that when lower needs are satisfied, they occupy less of our attention, but the higher needs tend to become more important, the more we pursue them.

He also observed a phenomenon that he called the frustration-regression process where when our higher needs are thwarted, we may regress to lower needs. This is especially important when it comes to motivating employees.

When a sense of autonomy or the need for mastery is compromised, say because of the structure of the work environment, the employee may focus more on the sense of security or relatedness the job provides.

McClelland’s achievement motivation theory

McClelland took a different approach to conceptualize needs and argued that needs are developed and learned, and focused his research away from satisfaction. He was also adamant that only one dominant motive can be present in our behavior at a time. McClelland categorized the needs or motives into achievement, affiliation, and power and saw them as being influenced by either internal drivers or extrinsic factors.

Among all the prospects which man can have, the most comforting is, on the basis of his present moral condition, to look forward to something permanent and to further progress toward a still better prospect.

Immanuel Kant

The drive for achievement arises out of the psychological need for competence and is defined as a striving for excellence against a standard that can originate from three sources of competition: the task itself, the competition with the self, and the competition against others.

High need for achievement can come from one’s social environment and socialization influences, like parents who promote and value pursuit and standards of excellence, but it can also be developed throughout life as a need for personal growth towards complexity (Reeve, 2014).

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory

Herzberg’s two-factor theory, also known as motivation-hygiene theory, was originally intended to address employee motivation and recognized two sources of job satisfaction. He argued that motivating factors influence job satisfaction because they are based on an individual’s need for personal growth: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement.

On the other hand, hygiene factors, which represented deficiency needs, defined the job context and could make individuals unhappy with their job: company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relationships, and working conditions.

Motivation theories explained in 10 minutes – EPM

Process theories like Skinner’s reinforcement theory, Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory, Adams’ equity theory, and Locke’s goal-setting theory set out to explain how motivation occurs and how our motives change over time.

Reinforcement theory

The most well-known process theory of motivation is the reinforcement theory, which focused on the consequences of human behavior as a motivating factor.

Based on Skinner’s operant conditioning theory , it identifies positive reinforcements as promoters that increased the possibility of the desired behavior’s repetition: praise, appreciation, a good grade, trophy, money, promotion, or any other reward (Gordon, 1987).

It distinguished positive reinforcements from negative reinforcement and punishment, where the former gives a person only what they need in exchange for desired behavior, and the latter tries to stop the undesired behavior by inflicting unwanted consequences.

See our articles on Positive Reinforcement in the Workplace and Parenting Children with Positive Reinforcement .

Other process motivation theories combine aspects of reinforcement theory with other theories, sometimes from adjacent fields, to shine a light on what drives human behavior.

Adams’ equity theory of motivation

For example, Adams’ equity theory of motivation (1965), based on Social Exchange theory, states that we are motivated when treated equitably, and we receive what we consider fair for our efforts.

It suggests that we not only compare our contributions to the amount of rewards we receive but also compare them to what others receive for the same amount of input. Although equity is essential to motivation, it does not take into account the differences in individual needs, values, and personalities, which influence our perception of inequity.

Vroom’s expectancy theory

Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964), on the other hand, integrates needs, equity, and reinforcement theories to explain how we choose from alternative forms of voluntary behavior based on the belief that decisions will have desired outcomes. Vroom suggests that we are motivated to pursue an activity by appraising three factors:

• Expectancy that assumes more effort will result in success
• Instrumentality that sees a connection between activity and goal
• Valence which represents the degree to which we value the reward or the results of success.

Locke’s goal-setting theory

Finally, Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal-setting theory, an integrative model of motivation, sees goals as key determinants of behavior. Possibly the most widely applied, the goal-setting theory stresses goal specificity, difficulty, and acceptance and provides guidelines for how to incorporate them into incentive programs and management by objectives (MBO) techniques in many areas.

Lock’s recipe for effective goal setting includes:

• Setting of challenging but attainable goals. Too easy or too difficult or unrealistic goals don’t motivate us.
• Setting goals that are specific and measurable. These can focus us toward what we want and can help us measure the progress toward the goal.
• Goal commitment should be obtained. If we don’t commit to the goals, then we will not put adequate effort toward reaching them, regardless of how specific or challenging they are.
• Strategies to achieve this could include participation in the goal-setting process, the use of extrinsic rewards (bonuses), and encouraging intrinsic motivation through providing feedback about goal attainment. It is important to mention here that pressure to achieve goals is not useful because it can result in dishonesty and superficial performance.
• Support elements should be provided. For example, encouragement, needed materials and resources, and moral support.
• Knowledge of results is essential. Goals need to be quantifiable, and there needs to be feedback.

There are several articles on effective goal setting in our blog series that cover Locke’s theory and it’s many applications.

They address specific cognitive phenomena that can influence motivation, represent a particular factor of motivation, describe a form of expression of motivation, or explain a process through which it can occur or be enhanced.

The list of cognitive phenomena is by no means comprehensive, but it does give us a taste of the complexity of human motivation and includes references for those who want to read further into more nuanced topics:

• Plans (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1998)
• Goals (Locke & Latham, 2002)
• Implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1999)
• Deliberative versus implementation mindsets (Gollwitzer & Kinney, 1989)
• Promotion versus prevention orientations (Higgins, 1997)
• Growth versus fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2006)
• Dissonance (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999)
• Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986)
• Perceived control (Skinner, 1996)
• Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
• Learned helplessness theory (Miller & Seligman, 1975)
• Mastery beliefs (Diener & Dweck, 1978)
• Attributions (Wiener, 1986)
• Values (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
• Self-concept (Markus, 1977)
• Possible selves (Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006)
• Identity (Eccles, 2009)
• Self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000)
• Self-control (Baumeister & Tierney, 2011)

There are also several different approaches to understanding human motivation which we have discussed in greater detail in our article on Benefits and Importance of Motivation which amass a large body of motivational studies and are currently attracting a lot of attention in contemporary research in motivational science, namely intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the flow theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1975).

In addition to the Two Factor theory and equity theory, some theories focus on autonomy, wellbeing, and feedback as core motivational aspects of employees’ performance; theories X, Y and Z, and the Hawthorne effect, respectively.

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories, Theory X and Theory Y, to explain employee motivation and its implications for management. He divided employees into Theory X employees who avoid work and dislike responsibility and Theory Y employees who enjoy work and exert effort when they have control in the workplace.

He postulated that to motivate Theory X employees, the company needs to enforce rules and implement punishments. For Theory Y employees, management must develop opportunities for employees to take on responsibility and show creativity as a way of motivating. Theory X is heavily informed by what we know about intrinsic motivation, and the role satisfaction of basic psychological needs plays in effective employee motivation.

In response to this theory, a third theory, Theory Z, was developed by Dr. William Ouchi. Ouchi’s theory focuses on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life and focusing on the employee’s well-being. It encourages group work and social interaction to motivate employees in the workplace.

The Hawthorne Effect

Elton Mayo developed an explanation known as the Hawthorne Effect that suggested that employees are more productive when they know their work is being measured and studied.

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

There are also several theories on motivation that are used in sports and performance psychology. The core concept in understanding motivation from the performance perspective is how physiological and psychological arousal accompanies behavior.

Arousal is basically a form of mobilization of energy and activation either before or while engaged in the behavior. Arousal occurs in different modes. Physiological arousal refers to the excitement of the body, while psychological arousal is about how subjectively aroused an individual feels.

When we say that our palms are sweaty or our heart is pounding, it implies physiological arousal. When we feel tense and anxious, it signifies psychological arousal.

Robert Thayer (1989) evolved the theory of psychological arousal into two dimensions: energetic arousal and tense arousal, composed of energetic and tense dimensions. Energetic arousal is associated with positive affect, while tense arousal is associated with anxiety and fearfulness.

Tense arousal can be divided further into two types of anxiety: trait anxiety and state anxiety. One refers to the degree we respond to the environment in general negatively and with worry, while state anxiety refers to feelings of apprehension that occur in response to a particular situation.

Arousal originates from several sources. It can be generated by a stimulus that has an arousing function and a cue function. But background stimuli that do not capture our attention also increase arousal.

Thayer found that arousal varies with time of day, for many of us being highest around noon and lower in the morning and evening. Coffee, for example, can boost arousal, as can an instance of being evaluated during exams, music performance, or sports competitions.

Arousal also depends on more complex variables like novelty, complexity, and incongruity. The interaction of various stimuli explains why sometimes arousal increases behavioral efficiency and in other instances, decreases it.

Optimal functioning hypothesis

The zone of optimal functioning hypothesis in sports psychology identifies a zone of optimal arousal where an athlete performs best (Hanin, 1989). As arousal increases, performance on a task increases and then decreases, as can be seen on the inverted-U arousal–performance relationship diagram below.

According to the zone of optimal functioning hypothesis, each individual has her preferred area of arousal based on cognitive or somatic anxiety. The Yerkes–Dodson law explains further that the high point of the inverted-U or arousal–performance relationship depends on the complexity of the task being performed.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the relationship between the inverted-U nature of the arousal–performance relationship.

Hull–Spence drive theory

The classic Hull–Spence drive theory emphasizes how arousal affects performance with little regard for any cognitive awareness by the individual. Also known as drive reduction theory, it postulates that human behavior could be explained by conditioning and reinforcement.

This oversimplification is part of the reason why more nuanced and complex cognitive theories have largely replaced the theory. The cusp catastrophe model in sports psychology, arousal-biased competition theory, processing efficiency theory, and attentional control theory are more concerned with the cognitive aspects of arousal and how this affects behavioral efficiency.

Arousal-biased competition theory

Mather and Sutherland (2011) developed an arousal-biased competition theory to explain the inverted-U arousal–performance relationship. It suggests that arousal exhibits biases toward information that is the focus of our attention.

Arousal effects and therefore increases the priority of processing important information and decrease the priority of processing less critical information. The presence of arousal improves the efficiency of behavior that concerns a crucial stimulus, but it is done at the expense of the background stimuli.

Two memory systems theory

Metcalfe and Jacobs (1998) postulated the existence of two memory systems that influence the level of arousal we experience: a cool memory system and a hot memory system, each in a different area of the brain. The cool system, located in the hippocampus, serves the memory of events occurring in space and time and would allow us to remember where we parked our car this morning.

The hot system in the amygdala serves as the memory of events that occur under high arousal. Metcalfe and Jacobs theorized that the hot system remembers the details of stimuli that predict the onset of highly stressful or arousing events, such as events that predict danger and is responsible for the intrusive memories of individuals who have experienced extremely traumatic events.

Processing efficiency theory

The processing efficiency theory of Eysenck and Calvo theorized on how anxiety, expressed as worry, can influence performance. Preoccupation with being evaluated and being concerned about one’s performance turns to worry, which takes up working memory capacity and causes performance on cognitive tasks to decline (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992).

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Here are a suggested book references for tertiary-level study of motivation for those who want to dive deeper into some of these topics:

1. Understanding Motivation and Emotion – Johnmarshall Reeve

IT provides a toolbox of practical interventions and approaches for use in a wide variety of settings.

Available on Amazon .

2. Motivation: Theories and Principles – Robert C. Beck

It covers a broad range of motivational concepts from both human and animal theory and research, with an emphasis on the biological bases of motivation.

3. Motivation – Lambert Deckers

How motivation is the inducement of behavior, feelings, and cognition.

4. Motivation and Emotion Evolutionary Physiological, Developmental, and Social Perspectives – Denys A. deCatanzaro

5. Motivation: A Biosocial and Cognitive Integration of Motivation and Emotion – Eva Dreikurs Ferguson

These include hunger and thirst, circadian and other biological rhythms, fear and anxiety, anger and aggression, achievement, attachment, and love.

6. Human Motivation – Robert E. Franken

7. The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior – Peter M. Gollwitzer and John Bargh

These programs are effectively mapping the territory, providing new findings, and suggesting innovative strategies for future research.

8. Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span – Jutta Heckhausen and Carol S. Dweck

9. Reclaiming Cognition: The Primacy of Action, Intention, and Emotion (Journal of Consciousness Studies) – Rafael Nunez and Walter J. Freeman

This leads to the claim that cognition is representational and best explained using models derived from AI and computational theory. The authors depart radically from this model.

10. Motivation: Theory, Research, and Applications – Herbert L. Petri and John M. Govern

The book clearly presents the advantages and drawbacks to each of these explanations, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

11. Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance – Carol Sansone and Judith M. Harackiewicz

12. The Psychobiology of Human Motivation (Psychology Focus) – Hugh Wagner

It starts from basic physiological needs like hunger and thirst, to more complex aspects of social behavior like altruism.

There is no shortage of explanations for what constitutes human motivation, and the research on the topic is as vast and dense as the field of psychology itself. Perhaps the best course of action is to identify the motivational dilemma we’re trying to solve and then select one approach to motivation if only to try it out.

By annihilating desires you annihilate the mind. Every man without passions has within him no principle of action, nor motive to act.

Claude Adrien Helvetius, 1715–1771

As Dan Kahneman argues, teaching psychology is mostly a waste of time unless we as students can experience what we are trying to learn or teach about human nature and can deduce if it is right for us.

Then and only then, can we choose to act on it, move in the direction of change, or make a choice to remain the same. It’s all about experiential learning and connecting the knowledge we acquire to our own experience.

What motivational theory do you find most useful?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

• Image 1 : Maslow pyramid adapted from “Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built upon Ancient Foundations” by D. T. Kenrick et al., 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314 (see p. 293), and from “A Theory of Human Needs Should Be Human-Centered, Not Animal-Centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010)” by S. Kesebir et al., 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 315–319 (see p. 316), and from “Human Motives, Happiness, and the Puzzle of Parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010)” by S. Lyubormirsky & J. K. Boehm, 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 327–334.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology  (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. In D. Marks (Ed.), The health psychology reader (pp. 23-28). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Sage.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York, NY: Penguin.
• Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance . New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 267-283.
• Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of play in work and games. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (5), 451-462.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Balantine Books.
• Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44 (2), 78-89.
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132.
• Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6 (6), 409-434.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54 (7), 493-503.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (4), 531-542.
• Gordon, R. M. (1987). The structure of emotions . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hanin, Y. L. (1989). Interpersonal and intragroup anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An international perspective (pp. 19-28). New York, NY: Hemisphere.
• Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (Eds.). (1999). Science conference series. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300.
• Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 292-314.
• Kesebir, S., Graham, J., & Oishi, S. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 315-319.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717.
• Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J. K. (2010). Human motives, happiness, and the puzzle of parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al.(2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 327-334.
• Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 63-78.
• Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2), 114-133.
• Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (1998).  Emotional memory: The effects of stress on “cool” and “hot” memory systems.  In D. L. Medin (Ed.),  The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 38, pp. 187-222). New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84 (3), 228-238.
• Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 188-204.
• Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.
• Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3) , 482–497.
• Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 549-570.
• Thayer, R. L. (1989). The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal, 8 (2), 101-110.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964).  Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Wiener, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 281–312). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Thanks for this article, great summary of the content and process theories. I’m studying for my CHRP exam so just trying to condense a lot of info into concise study notes. Have previously taken courses in Organizational Behaviour that explored the theories in much more depth.

Hi Nicole, I love this site! I am a PhD student but in international development, not psychology and my methodology is multi-disciplinary, but that is quite difficult I am finding now I am looking at psychology! I have been sent down a path by an Australian academic about the role of action to motivation to action – do you have any good references to recommend on this? Thx, Sue Cant, Charles Darwin University

It sounds like you’re delving into an exciting interdisciplinary study! The role of action and motivation is indeed a key topic in psychology and relevant to international development too.

First, you might find “ Self-Determination Theory ” by Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci interesting. It delves into the relationship between motivation, action, and human behavior, exploring how our needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness influence our motivation and actions.

Another reference to consider is “ Mindset: The New Psychology of Success ” by Carol S. Dweck. It explores the concept of “growth mindset” and how our beliefs about our abilities can impact our motivation to act and overcome challenges.

These references should provide a good starting point for understanding the psychological aspects of action and motivation. I hope they prove useful for your research!

Best of luck with your PhD journey!

Kind regards, Julia | Community Manager

I enjoyed the fact that there is plenty information, if I were to write an essay on Motivation.

It’s so informative and inclusive! I just wonder if there are relevant theories on how to motivate communities (e.g. residents, companies, experts) to participate in decision-making (e.g. protection of cultural heritage)? Thank you!

Glad you liked the article! I’m not sure if there are theories that specifically cover this (they may be more in sociology and a bit beyond my expertise). But I’d recommend having a read of my article on positive communities. If you follow some of the references throughout, I suspect you’ll find some great resources and advice, particularly on participative decision-making: https://positivepsychology.com/10-traits-positive-community/

Hope this helps a little!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Deci and Ryans Self Determination Theory needs to be discussed… NOT just given an afterthought. Their argument that human behaviour is driven by the 3 fundamental needs of 1) Affiliation 2) Competence and 3) Self Determination is supported by developmental science (attachment theory, Tomosello’s cross species work, developmental work on competence and learning, and finally the huge body of work on intrinsic motivation and self-regulation.

This overview is well written but appears to have a big hole in it.

Hi Dr. Martin,

Thanks for your comment. We agree SDT is a powerful theory, and it has many different applications. We’ve addressed these in depth in some of our other articles on the topic:

Self-Determination Theory of Motivation: Why Intrinsic Motivation Matters – https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-theory/ 21 Self-Determination Skills and Activities to Utilize Today: https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-skills-activities/ Intrinsic Motivation Explained: 10 Factors & Real-Life Examples: https://positivepsychology.com/intrinsic-motivation-examples/

Hey Nicole. This summary is amazing and pin points what I’m looking for. In the case where I have to evaluate this theory for example Maslow’s hierarchy theory in relation to an organization’s needs. How do I go about that or what’s the best way to do so?

Hi Deborah,

So glad you enjoyed the article. Could you please give a little more information about what you’re looking to do? For instance, are you looking for a theory you can apply to assess individual employees’ motivation at work? Note that not all of the theories discussed here are really applicable to an organizational context (e.g., I would personally avoid Maslow’s hierarchy for this), so it would be helpful to have a little more information.

Yes. Precisely that. I am looking for theories that I am adapt to do an intervention , implementation and evaluation of employee motivation in an organization. And how exactly these theories are implemented.

Thank you Nicole. Excellent summary of available theories. Could you tell me please which may be the best theory to explain involvement in extremism and radicalization?

Glad you liked the article. Research on motivations underlying extremism and radicalization tend to point to our beliefs having a central role. This paper by Trip et al. (2019) provides an excellent summary of the thinking in this space. It looks at the factors from an REBT perspective. It addresses a whole range of motivational perspectives including uncertainty-identity theory and integrated threat theory.

I hope this article is helpful for you.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

How to Assess and Improve Readiness for Change

Clients seeking professional help from a counselor or therapist are often aware they need to change yet may not be ready to begin their journey. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (22)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (45)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

8 motivational theories and how to use them in work and life

Jump to section

What is a motivation theory?

The importance of motivation at work, 8 motivational theories, personalizing motivation to maximize performance.

Motivation is the driving force behind everything you do at work.

Pride drives you to finish high-quality deliverables, external validation encourages innovative ideas , and a potential bonus brings you to work harder. 

But that effect goes both ways. Feeling a lack of motivation means less creativity and reduced output, which can lead to disengagement and projects that miss the mark — issues that can have long-term effects on your morale and work-life balance.

Learning about motivational theories gives you the tools you need to understand what motivates you and how to harness it. And if you’re a team lead, these theories can do the same for the people around you. 

When you understand how motivation works and what makes everyone in your workplace tick, you’re in a much better position to avoid the disengagement trap. You can help yourself and others regain a sense of purpose and excitement for what they do.

A motivation theory concerns what might inspire a person to pursue and achieve a desired result. While theories of motivation have their roots in humanities disciplines like psychology and sociology, according to Verywell Mind, their applications span across all parts of life, and they’re especially useful in the workplace. As a leader, you can use different types of work motivation to engage team members and lead them toward collective goals .

Most theories hinge on one of two factors: extrinsic or intrinsic. People who thrive on extrinsic motivation look to something outside themselves (such as a bonus) to keep working hard. Those who need intrinsic motivation are after self-motivation and internal satisfaction, like pride and self-esteem . Each one has its pros and cons , and some theories combine both.

According to research from Gallup, employee engagement is steadily declining . Only 36% of employees were engaged in 2020, then 34% in 2021, and 32% in 2022. The report also states that the factors contributing to the decline include feeling appreciated at work , connection to company mission , and opportunities to learn and grow.

Disengagement can lead to more serious issues in the workplace, like quiet quitting and burnout . The 2023 “State of the Global Workplace” report from Gallup says that low levels of engagement actually cost the economy $8.8 trillion dollars per year — a number that amounts to 9% of global GDP. 

But these aren’t symptoms of being lazy or working the wrong job. They represent the effects of higher-level problems like a lack of employee appreciation , inequitable workloads, and unclear expectations . And in most cases, you have the power to improve the work environment and foster a more supportive space for yourself and others.

Motivation theories are tools, not solutions. And if you’re looking to give yourself or your team a boost, it might take some adjusting to find what works.

People struggle with motivation and inspiration for myriad reasons. Some may have a difficult time being productive in specific working conditions. Others might need more external help, such as performance incentives . And still, another may need more affirmation or encouragement from leadership to really shine. 

Using science-backed motivation theory in management will help you meet everyone’s needs and keep working together toward the team’s greater strategic mission.

1. Self-determination theory

In 1985, psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci co-authored a book called Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior . In it, they detailed their argument for controlled motivation, which states that people choose their behavior based on the external results they get from it.

Self-determination is simply a stepping stone to intrinsic motivation, which is when people find inspiration from within when actions help fulfill their personal goals. But this doesn’t happen without the presence of three factors:

• Autonomy: Having agency over behavior
• Competence: Feeling capable at work
• Relatedness: Having a connection to others

If you want your team members to be self-starters with self-determination theory , you need to give them as much flexibility as possible, such as choosing where they work for the day. It’s also ideal to offer professional development opportunities and provide time for team bonding . Once these factors are in place, they’re more likely to find the motivation to reach their goals .

2. Maslow’s theory

Maslow’s theory, developed in 1943 by psychologist Abraham Maslow, is based on his famous hierarchy of needs . It asserts that humans essentially have five tiers of needs:

• Physiological needs: Food, water, and shelter
• Safety needs: Security, health, and resources
• Love and belonging needs: Family and friendship
• Self-esteem needs: Recognition and respect
• Self-actualization needs: Reaching personal goals and happiness

Maslow’s needs theory follows the idea that most people seek to meet their basic needs — physiological and safety — before moving on to other needs like goal-setting . While movement up the hierarchy isn’t always sequential, each need relates to the other.

In the workplace, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs helps leaders understand the importance of meeting lower-level team needs, such as social and safety, before trying to help them reach the higher-level need of self-actualization .

To apply these ideas in your own workplace, ask some questions. Do your team members feel safe at work? Are they worried about job security or the size of their paycheck? Are they building solid relationships and receiving adequate recognition from both you and their peers?

If you’re struggling to motivate your team, determine whether you’re meeting their basic needs before moving on to other tactics. A feedback survey or 1:1 meetings can help you collect that information.

3. Herzberg’s theory

Also called the dual-factor theory, Frederick Herzberg’s theory of motivation focuses on two main factors: hygiene and motivation. Hygiene factors refer to the “basics” of work, such as working conditions, compensation, and management. Motivators refer to “extra” factors like incentives and career advancement opportunities.

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory suggests that the absence of hygiene factors in the work environment causes issues with job satisfaction, while the presence of motivators can improve it. And motivators only work when hygiene factors are up to par. 

Similar to Maslow’s theory above, Herzberg’s two-factor theory should remind you to apply the need hierarchy to the workplace and ensure that work hygiene is satisfactory for all team members. Then you can attempt to introduce other motivating factors like incentives or promotion opportunities .

4. McClelland’s theory

McClelland’s theory asserts that people have three main motivators:

• Achievement: The need to demonstrate competence
• Affiliation: The need for belonging and social acceptance
• Power: The need for autonomy and influence over others

Which of these drivers is most dominant depends heavily on a person’s life experiences and current situation. For managers, getting to know your team members personally and understanding basic information about their backgrounds is important for this theory to work, which you can do with icebreakers or deeper questions . You’ll sense which driver is most dominant and help you learn how to best motivate everyone.

Suppose that you notice one of your team members is highly motivated by leadership development. In that case, you could try helping them develop their skills with leadership training and ask them to help mentor new hires. They can achieve their personal goal of influencing others while also easing the onboarding process .

5. Vroom’s theory

Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory purports that people’s decision-making processes connect to their expectations about what will happen. People routinely make choices that will help them gain pleasure and avoid pain. A team member might avoid a frustrating task and complete easier ones instead, even though each one has the same level of importance.

Vroom’s work acknowledges that people have different values and levels of valence — motivation toward certain outcomes. To account for that, he explained three key factors:

• Instrumentality: Believing that the reward for completing an action will be commensurate with their level of performance or effort
• Expectancy: Believing that the reward will be greater if the effort or performance is greater
• Valence: Associating an emotion with the rewards

This theory suggests that people find greater motivation when they can predict and influence the outcome of their actions, and when they care deeply about that outcome. 

As a manager, you need to know what your team members value and create opportunities for them to receive those rewards. Set clear performance expectations and help them avoid pain by outlining the consequences of poor performance.

6. McGregor’s theory

McGregor’s theory focuses heavily on managerial behavior and how it affects team members. It suggests that managers fall into two management style categories: authoritarian and participative. A manager’s preferred style comes from their belief in one of two motivational theories — X and Y:

• Theory X: Managers who believe that team members dislike their work and avoid accountability are likely to have an authoritarian management style . They might watch their every move and micromanage their work .
• Theory Y: Managers who think that team members take pride in their work and are willing to go above and beyond without the need for supervision are more likely to become participative leaders. This means they trust and give more autonomy to their teams.

Self-reflect and figure out which one you connect with the most. As you apply the theory of X and Y, ask yourself whether your response hinders or encourages motivation in the workplace, and adjust your own behavior accordingly. If you find that your previous authoritarian approach stifles your team, offer more freedom and see if performance improves.

7. Alderfer’s theory

• P. Alderfer’s ERG theory builds on the foundation of Maslow’s needs hierarchy. The three categories that Alderfer identified connect closely to Maslow’s physiological needs, social needs, and self-actualization needs:
• Existence: Physiological and safety needs such as secure employment , health, and shelter
• Relatedness: Love and belonging needs like family, friends, and the respect of others
• Growth: Esteem and self-actualization needs like self-confidence , problem-solving, and creativity

But unlike the Maslow theory of motivation, a person can move between categories, even when they aren’t meeting lower-level needs. Instead, these categories operate in a frustration-regression model. This means someone might double down on meeting a lower-level need when they aren’t meeting higher-level ones. 

A team member may lean more toward relatedness needs when they don’t feel like they’re meeting their growth needs. As a result of this behavior, their priorities will change based on their perceived sense of progress in an area. 

If you frustrate their growth needs by failing to provide advancement opportunities, they may simply start socializing more instead of doing better at work to compensate. Frustration in any area will lead to regression — not motivation.

This theory reminds managers and leaders to look at someone’s entire sense of self when searching for ideas to motivate their staff. If you help your team members live a balanced life where they meet every need, they’re more likely to maintain inspiration in all settings, including work.

8. Skinner’s theory

Based on the concept of operant conditioning, B. F. Skinner’s theory of motivation follows the idea that the behavior of all human beings is based on consequences. 

If a behavior leads to a positive outcome (positive reinforcement) or helps avoid a negative one (negative reinforcement), you’re more likely to repeat it. Instead of focusing on internal or external motivators, it purports that motivation stems from a cause-and-effect relationship.

Managers and leaders who wish to use this theory at work are in luck because it’s one of the easiest to work toward. Find out what types of rewards empower your team, such as recognition, bonuses, or even paid time off. Then, motivate team members to do well by providing those rewards when they work hard and engage with their projects.

Every workplace is unique, and so is every person within it. Motivating a team is never cut-and-dry. It’s a process that takes trial and error, and even though it can be extensive, it’s worth it if you want to build a thriving workplace. 

Apply each of these motivational theories differently depending on team members’ backgrounds, current situations, and personal drivers. Collect feedback about their basic needs and what moves them to be enthusiastic and productive. If you’re unsure, all you have to do is ask — people want to feel like you support them.

Using theories of motivation in your management style isn’t the answer to every disengagement problem. But they will help you get to know your team and foster an environment that encourages them to continuously improve. And remember: you need to motivate yourself first.

Lead with confidence and authenticity

Develop your leadership and strategic management skills with the help of an expert Coach.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

How building trust is the true secret to motivating sales teams

You need more than a quote to motivate a team, the ultimate guide to motivating a team — and why it matters, developing agility and resilience in the core of your organization, 5 real-time recognition tactics that drive engagement and retention, 50 teamwork quotes to motivate and inspire your team, supercharge your team with the advantages of intrinsic motivation, is the carrot-and-stick approach right for your team, why the secret to great coaching lies in motivation, similar articles, how to use motivational interview questions to drive change, 19 ways to get motivated, what is determination develop traits you need to succeed, learn what maslow's hierarchy of needs is to unlock your potential, 5 self-actualization examples: unlock maslow’s hierarchy of needs, how to become a life coach and start a promising career, how to handle a lack of motivation at work, extrinsic motivation: what is it, and can it lead to fulfillment, leveraging humanistic psychology to achieve self-actualization, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Theories of Motivation

Motivation  describes the wants or needs that direct behavior toward a goal, but, why do we do the things we do? What motivations underlie our behaviors? Is motivation an inherited trait or is motivation influenced by reinforcement and consequences that strengthen some behaviors and weaken others? Is the key to motivating learners a lesson plan that captures their interest and attention? In other words, is motivation something innate that we are born with that can be strengthened by reinforcers external to the learning task, or is it something interwoven with the learning process itself?

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

Some motives are biological, like our need for food or water. However, the motives that we will be more interested in are more psychological. In general, we discuss motivation as being  intrinsic  (arising from internal factors) or  extrinsic  (arising from external factors). Intrinsically motivated behaviors are performed because of the sense of personal satisfaction that they bring, while extrinsically motivated behaviors are performed in order to receive something from others.

Video 6.1.1.  Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivation  explains the difference and provides examples of these types of motivation.

Think about why you are currently in college. Are you here because you enjoy learning and want to pursue an education to make yourself a more well-rounded individual? If so, then you are intrinsically motivated. However, if you are here because you want to get a college degree to make yourself more marketable for a high-paying career or to satisfy the demands of your parents, then your motivation is more extrinsic in nature.

In reality, our motivations are often a mix of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, but the nature of the mix of these factors might change over time (often in ways that seem counter-intuitive). There is an old adage: “Choose a job that you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life,” meaning that if you enjoy your occupation, work doesn’t seem like . . . well, work. Some research suggests that this isn’t necessarily the case (Daniel & Esser, 1980; Deci, 1972; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). According to this research, receiving some sort of extrinsic reinforcement (i.e., getting paid) for engaging in behaviors that we enjoy leads to those behaviors being thought of as work no longer providing that same enjoyment. As a result, we might spend less time engaging in these reclassified behaviors in the absence of any extrinsic reinforcement. For example, Odessa loves baking, so in her free time, she bakes for fun. Oftentimes, after stocking shelves at her grocery store job, she often whips up pastries in the evenings because she enjoys baking. When a coworker in the store’s bakery department leaves his job, Odessa applies for his position and gets transferred to the bakery department. Although she enjoys what she does in her new job, after a few months, she no longer has much desire to concoct tasty treats in her free time. Baking has become work in a way that changes her motivation to do it. What Odessa has experienced is called the overjustification effect—intrinsic motivation is diminished when extrinsic motivation is given. This can lead to extinguishing intrinsic motivation and creating a dependence on extrinsic rewards for continued performance (Deci et al., 1999).

Other studies suggest that intrinsic motivation may not be so vulnerable to the effects of extrinsic reinforcements, and in fact, reinforcements such as verbal praise might actually increase intrinsic motivation (Arnold, 1976; Cameron & Pierce, 1994). In that case, Odessa’s motivation to bake in her free time might remain high if, for example, customers regularly compliment her baking or cake decorating skills.

These apparent discrepancies in the researchers’ findings may be understood by considering several factors. For one, physical reinforcement (such as money) and verbal reinforcement (such as praise) may affect an individual in very different ways. In fact, tangible rewards (i.e., money) tend to have more negative effects on intrinsic motivation than do intangible rewards (i.e., praise). Furthermore, the expectation of the extrinsic motivator by an individual is crucial: If the person expects to receive an extrinsic reward, then intrinsic motivation for the task tends to be reduced. If, however, there is no such expectation, and the extrinsic motivation is presented as a surprise, then intrinsic motivation for the task tends to persist (Deci et al., 1999).

In addition, culture may influence motivation. For example, in collectivistic cultures, it is common to do things for your family members because the emphasis is on the group and what is best for the entire group, rather than what is best for any one individual (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This focus on others provides a broader perspective that takes into account both situational and cultural influences on behavior; thus, a more nuanced explanation of the causes of others’ behavior becomes more likely. (You will learn more about collectivistic and individualistic cultures when you learn about social psychology.)

In educational settings, students are more likely to experience intrinsic motivation to learn when they feel a sense of belonging and respect in the classroom. This internalization can be enhanced if the evaluative aspects of the classroom are de-emphasized and if students feel that they exercise some control over the learning environment. Furthermore, providing students with activities that are challenging, yet doable, along with a rationale for engaging in various learning activities can enhance intrinsic motivation for those tasks (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Consider Hakim, a first-year law student with two courses this semester: Family Law and Criminal Law. The Family Law professor has a rather intimidating classroom: He likes to put students on the spot with tough questions, which often leaves students feeling belittled or embarrassed. Grades are based exclusively on quizzes and exams, and the instructor posts the results of each test on the classroom door. In contrast, the Criminal Law professor facilitates classroom discussions and respectful debates in small groups. The majority of the course grade is not exam-based but centers on a student-designed research project on a crime issue of the student’s choice. Research suggests that Hakim will be less intrinsically motivated in his Family Law course, where students are intimidated in the classroom setting, and there is an emphasis on teacher-driven evaluations. Hakim is likely to experience a higher level of intrinsic motivation in his Criminal Law course, where the class setting encourages inclusive collaboration and a respect for ideas, and where students have more influence over their learning activities.

Think About It

Schools often use concrete rewards to increase adaptive behaviors. How might this be a disadvantage for students intrinsically motivated to learn? What are the educational implications of the potential for concrete rewards to diminish intrinsic motivation for a given task?

We would expect to see a shift from learning for the sake of learning to learning to earn some reward. This would undermine the foundation upon which traditional institutions of higher education are built. For a student motivated by extrinsic rewards, dependence on those may pose issues later in life (post-school) when there are not typically extrinsic rewards for learning.

Like motivation itself, theories of it are full of diversity. For convenience in navigating through the diversity, we have organized the theories around two perspectives about motion. The first set of theories focuses on the innateness of motivation. These theories emphasize instinctual or inborn needs and drives that influence our behavior. The second set of theories proposes cognition as the source of motivation. Individual motivation is influenced by thoughts, beliefs, and values. The variation in these theories is due to disagreement about which cognitive factors are essential to motivation and how those cognitive factors might be influenced by the environment.

Innate Motivation Theories

First, we will describe some early motivational theories that focus on innate needs and drives. Not all of these theories apply to the classroom, but learning about them will show you how different theorists have approached the issue of motivation. You are sure to find some elements of your own thinking about motivation in each of them. We will examine instinct theory, drive theory, and arousal theory as early explanations of motivation. We will also discuss the behavioral perspective on motivation and the deficiency-growth perspective, as exemplified by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Cognitive Theories of Motivation

Cognitive theories of motivation assume that behavior is a result of cognitive processes. These theories presume that individuals are interpreting information and making decisions, not just acting on basic needs and drives. Cognitive motivation theories share strong ties with the cognitive and social learning theories that we discussed previously. We will examine several cognitive motivation theories: interest, attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, and self-efficacy theory. All emphasize that learners need to know, understand, and appreciate what they are doing in order to become motivated. Then, along with these cognitive motivation theories, we will examine a motivational perspective called self-determination theory, which attempts to reconcile cognitive theory’s emphasis on intrinsic motivation with more traditional notions of human needs and drives.

Video 6.1.2.  Instincts, Arousal, Needs, Drives  provides a brief overview of some of the major motivational theories.

Candela Citations

• Theories of Motivation . Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton. Provided by : The Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Borlin. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Psychology 2e. Authored by : Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett. Provided by : Open Stax. Retrieved from : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivation. Provided by : ASCatRIT. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/kUNE4RtZnbk. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 5: Theories of Motivation

Chapter Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to know and learn the following:

• Understand the role of motivation in determining employee performance.
• Classify the basic needs of employees.
• Describe how fairness perceptions are determined and consequences of these perceptions.
• Understand the importance of rewards and punishments.
• Apply motivation theories to analyze performance problems.

Introduction

The challenges and motivators in a post pandemic world..

The world is becoming progressively more digital with every passing year, so today’s workforce looks a lot different than it did 25 years ago. This progression, expedited by the global pandemic of Covid19, presents new challenges that today’s employers must learn to navigate to motivate their teams, prevent employee burnout and minimize turnover.

To understand and overcome the challenges in motivating today’s workforce, especially companies with significant numbers of non-desk workers, we must understand both the challenges and the motivators of new age, digital employees.

Let’s start with the challenges.

The top challenges chosen by the vast majority of employers

A. Building a great employee experience

1.Listen to people. Ensure that employees have a means of communication. Many non-desk workers are not connected to the company in a way that allows  two-way communication.

2.Get feedback from surveys and focus groups, then implement change if need be. Keep an open channel of communication so that employees feel connected. Be committed to employee development and growth.

3.Equip and enable managers to support their teams. Creating a positive employee experience  goes a long way with employee engagement and motivation.

B. Creating calm and reassurance in periods of turbulence

1.We can all agree that the world has been in a period of turbulence over the past two years. As a leader in an organization, you  must pause and breathe . Managers can unintentionally pass their stress onto other employees.

2.Do the research and  prevent the spread of misinformation.  Speak clearly and confidently to your teams and colleagues so that you appear to have control over the situation.  Transparency will create trust and go a long way in calming the workforce.

C. Fighting burnout

1.Let’s talk about the ever-elusive fight against burnout. It’s easy to understand that the outside stressors of everyday life during and after a pandemic paired with  the daily stressors of work  are enough to burn anyone out. More than  70%  of employees reported feeling burnt out over the past year, making history (Forbes.com).

2.It’s never been more critical than it is now to tackle feelings of physical and emotional exhaustion. The key to avoiding burnout is  getting in front of it, as it is much easier to prevent burnout than reverse it.

D. Turnover and letting employees go

1.Turnover tends to be a result of a poor approach to the above challenges. It’s no secret that the cost of turnover is high, estimated at 1.5 – 2 times an employee’s salary and $1,500 per hourly employee  (builtin.com).

Therefore,  organizations should actively avoid turnover  by putting into place best practices and implementing a solid plan to tackle the above challenges.

E. Retaining top talent

1.With the cost of turnover being so high, retaining top talent is a priority . The key here is employee engagement, so ask questions to gain insight on employees to  instill the correct development and training programs.

Weekly one-on-one meetings with department heads or managers are an  excellent way to ask questions and get to know these individuals.  Including all employees in the communication loop creates an atmosphere of teamwork and ensures that everyone’s efforts are appreciated.

2.Create on-the-job learning opportunities, whether significant or small. Vary learning experiences and provide insightful feedback that is constructive and accompanied by manageable action steps.

F. Communicating effectively

These challenges arguably have a common denominator – they’re a causal effect of poor communication. Therefore,  effective communication could essentially eliminate or solve these challenges.

It seems simple, yet effective communication is complex and involves complex solutions. Everyone communicates differently. The good news is there are a  plethora of companies specializing in making communications in the workforce easy.

According to Pew Research,  91% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64  own a smartphone, making them far and away the most popular way to communicate. Due to this information, the most innovative and easiest way to reach employees and increase engagement would be to  interact via the smartphone.

Employee engagement apps can  simplify your workforce management system  and workplace communication making it accessible for all employees, non-desk workers, remote and office workers alike. Some of these platforms include  Artificial Intelligence which provides highly structured communications.

These communications give the right message to the right person at the right time, prevent spray and pray messaging, and the chaos and lack of usage that reply-all messaging creates.

Now that the challenges have been addressed, let’s understand the motivators.

Why is it that, on some days, it can feel harder than others to get up when your alarm goes off, do your workout, complete a work or school assignment, or make dinner for your family?

Motivation (or a lack thereof) is usually behind why we do the things that we do.

There are different types of motivation, and as it turns out, understanding  why  you are motivated to do the things that you do can help you keep yourself motivated — and can help you motivate others.

There are two types of motivator categories in a company’s culture, intrinsic and extrinsic.

What Is Intrinsic Motivation?

When you’re intrinsically motivated, your behavior is motivated by your internal desire to do something for its own sake — for example, your personal enjoyment of an activity, or your desire to learn a skill because you’re eager to learn.

Examples of intrinsic motivation could include:

• Reading a book because you enjoy the storytelling
• Exercising because you want to relieve stress
• Cleaning your home because it helps you feel organized

What Is Extrinsic Motivation?

When you’re extrinsically motivated, your behavior is motivated by an external factor pushing you to do something in hopes of earning a reward — or avoiding a less-than-positive outcome.

Examples of extrinsic motivation could include:

• Reading a book to prepare for a test
• Exercising to lose weight
• Cleaning your home to prepare for visitors coming over

If you have a job, and you must complete a project, you’re probably extrinsically motivated — by your manager’s praise or a potential raise or commission — even if you enjoy the project while you’re doing it. If you’re in school, you’re extrinsically motivated to learn a foreign language because you’re being graded on it — even if you enjoy practicing and studying it.

So, intrinsic motivation is good,  and  extrinsic motivation is good. The key is to figure out  why you — and your team — are motivated to do things and encouraging both types of motivation.

If someone is not performing well, what could be the reason? According to this equation, motivation, ability, and environment are the major influences over employee performance.

Motivation is one of the forces that lead to performance. Motivation is defined as the desire to achieve a goal or a certain performance level, leading to goal-directed behaviour. When we refer to someone as being motivated, we mean that the person is trying hard to accomplish a certain task. Motivation is clearly important if someone is to perform well; however, it is not sufficient. Ability —or having the skills and knowledge required to perform the job—is also important and is sometimes the key predictor of effectiveness. Finally, environmental factors such as having the resources, information, and support to perform well are critical to determine performance. At different times, one of these three factors may be the key to high performance. For example, for an employee sweeping the floor, motivation may be the most important factor that determines performance. In contrast, even the most motivated individual would not be able to successfully design a house without the necessary talent involved in building quality homes. Being motivated is not the same as being a high performer and is not the sole reason why people perform well, but it is nevertheless a key influence over our performance level.

So, what motivates people? Why do some employees try to reach their targets and pursue excellence while others merely show up at work and count the hours? As with many questions involving human beings, the answer is anything but simple. Instead, there are several theories explaining the concept of motivation. We will discuss motivation theories under two categories: need-based theories and process theories.

5.1 A Motivating Place to Work: The Case of Rogers Communications Inc

Rogers Communications Inc has been identified as one of Canada’s 100 top employers by Media Corp Canada, who investigate Canadian companies based on 8 criteria: (1) Physical Workplace; (2) Work Atmosphere & Social; (3) Health, Financial & Family Benefits; (4) Vacation & Time Off; (5) Employee Communications; (6) Performance Management; (7) Training & Skills Development; and (8) Community Involvement. Employers are compared to other organizations in their field to determine which offers the most progressive and forward-thinking programs (Media Corp Canada,2019).

5.2 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate behaviour to satisfy their own personal needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship, and his or her behaviour may be a way of satisfying this need. At the time, researchers developed theories to understand what people need. Two theories may be placed under this category: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and McClelland’s acquired-needs theory.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow is among the most prominent psychologists of the twentieth century. His hierarchy of needs is an image familiar to most business students and managers. The theory is based on a simple idea: human beings have needs that are ranked (Maslow, 1943; Maslow, 1954). There are some needs that are basic to all human beings, and in their absence nothing else matters. As we satisfy these basic needs, we start looking to satisfy higher order needs. In other words, once a lower-level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a motivator.

The most basic of Maslow’s needs are physiological needs . Physiological needs refer to the need for food, water, and other biological needs. These needs are basic because when they are lacking, the search for them may overpower all other urges. Imagine being very hungry. At that point, all your behaviour may be directed at finding food. Once you eat, though, the search for food ceases and the promise of food no longer serves as a motivator. Once physiological needs are satisfied, people tend to become concerned about safety needs . Are they free from the threat of danger, pain, or an uncertain future? On the next level up, social needs refer to the need to bond with other human beings, be loved, and form lasting attachments with others. In fact, attachments, or lack of them, are associated with our health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The satisfaction of social needs makes esteem needs more salient. Esteem needs refer to the desire to be respected by one’s peers, feel important, and be appreciated. Finally, at the highest level of the hierarchy, the need for self-actualization refers to “becoming all you are capable of becoming.” This need manifests itself by the desire to acquire new skills, take on new challenges, and behave in a way that will lead to the attainment of one’s life goals.

How can an organization satisfy its employees’ various needs? In the long run, physiological needs may be satisfied by the person’s paycheck, but it is important to remember that pay may satisfy other needs such as safety and esteem as well. Providing generous benefits that include health insurance and company-sponsored retirement plans, as well as offering a measure of job security, will help satisfy safety needs. Social needs may be satisfied by having a friendly environment and providing a workplace conducive to collaboration and communication. Company picnics and other social get-togethers may also be helpful if most employees are motivated primarily by social needs (but may cause resentment if they are not and if they must sacrifice a Sunday afternoon for a company picnic). Providing promotion opportunities at work, recognizing a person’s accomplishments verbally or through more formal reward systems, and conferring job titles that communicate to the employee that one has achieved high status within the organization are among the ways of satisfying esteem needs. Finally, self-actualization needs may be satisfied by the provision of development and growth opportunities on or off the job, as well as by work that is interesting and challenging. By making the effort to satisfy the different needs of each employee, organizations may ensure a highly motivated workforce.

Acquired-Needs Theory

Among the need-based approaches to motivation, David McClelland’s acquired-needs theory is the one that has received the greatest amount of support. According to this theory, individuals acquire three types of needs because of their life experiences. These needs are the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power . All individuals possess a combination of these needs, and the dominant needs are thought to drive employee behaviour.

McClelland used a unique method called the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to assess the dominant need (Spangler, 1992). This method entails presenting research subjects an ambiguous picture and asking them to write a story based on it. The instructions will be: “Take a look at the following picture. Who is this person? What is she doing? Why is she doing it?” The story you tell about the woman in the picture would then be analyzed by trained experts. The idea is that the stories the photo evokes would reflect how the mind works and what motivates the person. ( Apperception : the mental process by which a person makes sense of an idea by assimilating it to the body of ideas he or she already possesses. For example: a perception would be seeing a dog and thinking “There is a dog.” Apperception would be seeing a dog and thinking “That dog looks like the one that bit my friend Andres”)

If the story you come up with contains themes of success, meeting deadlines, or coming up with brilliant ideas, you may be high in need for achievement. Those who have high need for achievement have a strong need to be successful. As children, they may be praised for their hard work, which forms the foundations of their persistence (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). As adults, they are preoccupied with doing things better than they did in the past. These individuals are constantly striving to improve their performance. They relentlessly focus on goals, particularly stretch goals that are challenging in nature (Campbell, 1982).

Are individuals who are high in need for achievement effective managers? Because of their success in lower-level jobs where their individual contributions matter the most, those with high need for achievement are often promoted to higher level positions (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). However, a high need for achievement has significant disadvantages in management positions. Management involves getting work done by motivating others.

If the story you created in relation to the picture you are analyzing contains elements of making plans to be with friends or family, you may have a high need for affiliation . Individuals who have a high need for affiliation want to be liked and accepted by others. When given a choice, they prefer to interact with others and be with friends (Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).

Finally, if your story contains elements of getting work done by influencing other people or the desire to make an impact on the organization, you may have a high need for power . Those with a high need for power want to influence others and control their environment. A need for power may in fact be a destructive element in relationships with colleagues if it takes the form of seeking and using power for one’s own good and prestige.

5.3 Process-Based Theories

A separate stream of research views motivation as something more than action aimed at satisfying a need. Instead, process-based theories view motivation as a logical process. Individuals analyze their work environment, develop thoughts and feelings, and react in certain ways. Process theories attempt to explain the thought processes of individuals who demonstrate motivated behaviour. Under this category, we will review equity theory, expectancy theory, and reinforcement theory.

Equity Theory

Imagine that you are paid $10 an hour working as an office assistant. You have held this job for 6 months. You are very good at what you do, you come up with creative ways to make things easier around you, and you are a good colleague who is willing to help others. You stay late when necessary and are flexible if requested to change hours. Now imagine that you found out they are hiring another employee who is going to work with you, who will hold the same job title, and who will perform the same type of tasks. This person has more advanced computer skills, but it is unclear whether these will be used on the job. The starting pay for this person will be $14 an hour. How would you feel? Would you be as motivated as before, going above and beyond your duties?

If your reaction to this scenario is along the lines of “this would be unfair,” your behaviour may be explained using equity theory (Adams, 1965). According to this theory, individuals are motivated by a sense of fairness in their interactions. Moreover, our sense of fairness is a result of the social comparisons we make. Specifically, we compare our inputs and outcomes with other people’s inputs and outcomes. We perceive fairness if we believe that the input-to-outcome ratio we are bringing into the situation is like the input-to-outcome ratio of a comparison person, or a referent . Perceptions of inequity create tension within us and drive us to action that will reduce perceived inequity.

What Are Inputs and Outcomes?

Inputs are the contributions people feel they are making to the environment. In the previous example, the person’s hard work; loyalty to the organization; amount of time with the organization; and level of education, training, and skills may have been relevant inputs. Outcomes are the perceived rewards someone can receive from the situation. For the hourly wage employee in our example, the $10 an hour pay rate was a core outcome. There may also be other, more peripheral outcomes, such as acknowledgment or preferential treatment from a manager. In the prior example, however, the person may reason as follows: I have been working here for 6 months. I am loyal, and I perform well (inputs). I am paid $10 an hour for this (outcomes). The new person does not have any experience here (referent’s inputs) but will be paid $14 an hour. This situation is unfair.

Who is the Referent?

The referent other may be a specific person as well as a category of people. Referents should be comparable to us—otherwise the comparison is not meaningful. It would be pointless for a student worker to compare himself to the CEO of the company, given the differences in inputs and outcomes. Instead, individuals may compare themselves to someone performing similar tasks within the same organization or, in the case of a CEO, a different organization.

Reactions to Unfairness

The theory outlines several potential reactions to perceived inequity. Oftentimes, the situation may be dealt with perceptually by altering our perceptions of our own or the referent’s inputs and outcomes . For example, we may justify the situation by downplaying our own inputs (I don’t really work very hard on this job), valuing our outcomes more highly (I am gaining valuable work experience, so the situation is not that bad), distorting the other person’s inputs (the new hire really is more competent than I am and deserves to be paid more), or distorting the other person’s outcomes (she gets $14 an hour but will have to work with a lousy manager, so the situation is not unfair).

Another option would be to have the referent increase inputs . If the other person brings more to the situation, getting more out of the situation would be fair. If that person can be made to work harder or work on more complicated tasks, equity would be achieved.

The person experiencing a perceived inequity may also reduce inputs or attempt to increase outcomes . If the lower paid person puts forth less effort, the perceived inequity would be reduced. Research shows that people who perceive inequity reduce their work performance or reduce the quality of their inputs (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978; Goodman & Friedman, 1971). Increasing one’s outcomes can be achieved through legitimate means such as negotiating a pay raise. At the same time, research shows that those feeling inequity sometimes resort to stealing to balance the scales (Greenberg, 1993).

Other options include changing the comparison person (e.g., others doing similar work in different organizations are paid only minimum wage) and leaving the situation by quitting (Schmidt & Marwell, 1972). Sometimes it may be necessary to consider taking legal action as a potential outcome of perceived inequity. For example, if an employee finds out the main reason behind a pay gap is gender related, the person may react to the situation by taking legal action because sex discrimination in pay is illegal in Canada.

Fairness Beyond Equity: Procedural and Interactional Justice

Equity theory looks at perceived fairness as a motivator. However, the way equity theory defines fairness is limited to fairness of rewards. Starting in the 1970s, research on workplace fairness began taking a broader view of justice. Equity theory deals with outcome fairness, and therefore it is considered to be a distributive justice theory.

Distributive justice refers to the degree to which the outcomes received from the organization are perceived to be fair. Two other types of fairness have been identified: procedural justice and interactional justice.

Let’s assume that you just found out you are getting a promotion. Clearly, this is an exciting outcome and comes with a pay raise, increased responsibilities, and prestige. If you feel you deserve to be promoted, you will perceive high distributive justice (you getting this promotion is fair). However, you later found out upper management picked your name out of a hat! What would you feel? You might still like the outcome but feel that the decision-making process was unfair. If so, you are describing feelings of procedural justice.

Procedural justice refers to the degree to which fair decision-making procedures are used to arrive at a decision. People do not care only about reward fairness. They also expect decision-making processes to be fair. In fact, research shows that employees care about the procedural justice of many organizational decisions, including layoffs, employee selection, surveillance of employees, performance appraisals, and pay decisions (Alge, 2001; Bauer et al., 1998; Kidwell, 1995). People also tend to care more about procedural justice in situations in which they do not get the outcome they feel they deserve (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). If you did not get the promotion and later discovered that management chose the candidate by picking names out of a hat, how would you feel? This may be viewed as adding insult to injury. When people do not get the rewards they want, they tend to hold management responsible if procedures are not fair (Brockner et al., 2007).

Now let’s imagine the moment your boss told you that you are getting a promotion. Your manager’s exact words were, “Yes, we are giving you the promotion. The job is so simple that we thought even you can handle it.” Now what is your reaction? The feeling of unfairness you may now feel is explained by interactional justice. Interactional justice refers to the degree to which people are treated with respect, kindness, and dignity in interpersonal interactions. We expect to be treated with dignity by our peers, supervisors, and customers. When the opposite happens, we feel angry. Even when faced with negative outcomes such as a pay cut, being treated with dignity and respect serves as a buffer and alleviates our stress (Greenberg, 2006).

Expectancy Theory

The expectancy theory of motivation, or the expectancy theory, is the belief that an individual chooses their behaviors based on what they believe leads to the most beneficial outcome. The individual’s motivation to put forth more or less effort is determined by a rational calculation in which individuals evaluate their situation (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964).

This theory is dependent on how much value a person places on different motivations. This results in a decision they expect to give them the highest return for their efforts.

According to this theory, individuals ask themselves three questions.

The first question is whether the person believes that high levels of effort will lead to outcomes of interest, such as performance or success. This perception is labeled expectancy . For example, do you believe that the effort you put forth in a class is related to performing well in that class? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.

The second question is the degree to which the person believes that performance is related to subsequent outcomes, such as rewards. This perception is labeled instrumentality . For example, do you believe that getting a good grade in the class is related to rewards such as getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, or from your friends or parents? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.

Finally, individuals are also concerned about the value of the rewards awaiting them as a result of performance. The anticipated satisfaction that will result from an outcome is labeled valence . For example, do you value getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, friends, or parents? If these outcomes are desirable to you, your expectancy and instrumentality is high, and you are more likely to put forth effort.

Expectancy theory is a well-accepted theory that has received a lot of research attention (Heneman & Schwab, 1972; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). It is simple and intuitive. Consider the following example. Let’s assume that you are working in the concession stand of a movie theater. You have been selling an average of 100 combos of popcorn and soft drinks a day. Now your manager asks you to increase this number to 300 combos a day. Would you be motivated to try to increase your numbers? Here is what you may be thinking:

• Expectancy: is the belief that if an individual raises their efforts, their reward may rise as well. Expectancy is what motivates a person to gather the right tools to get the job done, which could include raw materials and resources, skills to perform the job and support and information from supervisors. Can I do it? If I try harder, can I really achieve this number? Is there a link between how hard I try and whether I reach this goal or not? If you feel that you can achieve this number if you try, you have high expectancy.
• Instrumentality: is the belief that the reward you receive depends on your performance in the workplace. What is in it for me? What is going to happen if I reach 300? What are the outcomes that will follow? Are they going to give me a 2% pay raise? Am I going to be named the salesperson of the month? Am I going to receive verbal praise from my manager? If you believe that performing well is related to certain outcomes, instrumentality is high.
• Valence: is the importance you place on the expected outcome of your performance. This often depends on your individual needs, goals, values and sources of motivation. For example, if you expect to be one of the top performers on your team, you may place high importance on achieving that goal, even if others don’t expect you to achieve this level of performance. How do I feel about the outcomes in question? Do I feel that a 2% pay raise is desirable? Do I find being named the salesperson of the month attractive? Do I think that being praised by my manager is desirable? If your answers are yes, valence is positive. In contrast, if you find the outcomes undesirable (you definitely do not want to be named the salesperson of the month because your friends would make fun of you), valence is negative.

If your answers to all three questions are affirmative—you feel that you can do it, you will get an outcome if you do it, and you value the reward—you are more likely to be motivated to put forth more effort toward selling more combos.

As a manager, how can you motivate employees? In fact, managers can influence all three perceptions (Cook, 1980).

Influencing Expectancy Perceptions

Employees may not believe that their effort leads to high performance for a multitude of reasons. First, they may not have the skills, knowledge, or abilities to successfully perform their jobs. The answer to this problem may be training employees or hiring people who are qualified for the jobs in question. Second, low levels of expectancy may be because employees may feel that something other than effort predicts performance, such as political behaviours on the part of employees. If employees believe that the work environment is not conducive to performing well (resources are lacking or roles are unclear), expectancy will also suffer. Therefore, clearing the path to performance and creating an environment in which employees do not feel restricted will be helpful. Finally, some employees may perceive little connection between their effort and performance level because they have an external locus of control, low self-esteem, or other personality traits that condition them to believe that their effort will not make a difference. In such cases, providing positive feedback and encouragement may help motivate employees.

Reinforcement Theory

Reinforcement theory is based on a simple idea that may be viewed as common sense. Beginning at infancy we learn through reinforcement. If you have observed a small child discovering the environment, you will see reinforcement theory in action. When the child discovers that twisting and turning a tap leads to water coming out and finds this outcome pleasant, he is more likely to repeat the behaviour. If he burns his hand while playing with hot water, the child is likely to stay away from the faucet in the future.

Despite the simplicity of reinforcement, how many times have you seen positive behaviour ignored, or worse, negative behaviour rewarded? In many organizations, this is a familiar scenario. People go above and beyond the call of duty, yet their actions are ignored or criticized. People with disruptive habits may receive no punishments because the manager is afraid of the reaction the person will give when confronted. Problem employees may even receive rewards such as promotions so they will be transferred to a different location and become someone else’s problem.

Reinforcement Interventions

How does a leader modify a team members’ behaviour so that the team member becomes more productive. ?

Reinforcement theory describes four interventions to modify employee behaviour. Two of these (Positive and Negative reinforcement) are methods of increasing the frequency of desired behaviours, while the remaining two (Punishment and Extinction) are methods of reducing the frequency of undesired behaviours.

Positive reinforcement is a method of increasing the desired behaviour (Beatty & Schneier, 1975). Positive reinforcement involves making sure that behaviour is met with positive consequences. For example, praising an employee for treating a customer respectfully is an example of positive reinforcement. If the praise immediately follows the positive behaviour, the employee will see a link between the behaviour and positive consequences and will be motivated to repeat similar behaviours.

Negative reinforcement is also used to increase the desired behaviour. Negative reinforcement involves removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behaviour is demonstrated. Nagging an employee to complete a report is an example of negative reinforcement. The negative stimulus in the environment will remain present until positive behaviour is demonstrated. The problem with negative reinforcement is that the negative stimulus may lead to unexpected behaviours and may fail to stimulate the desired behaviour. For example, the person may start avoiding the manager to avoid being nagged.

Extinction is used to decrease the frequency of negative behaviours. Extinction is the removal of rewards following negative behaviour. Sometimes, negative behaviours are demonstrated because they are being inadvertently rewarded. For example, it has been shown that when people are rewarded for their unethical behaviours, they tend to demonstrate higher levels of unethical behaviours (Harvey & Sims, 1978). Thus, when the rewards following unwanted behaviours are removed, the frequency of future negative behaviours may be reduced. For example, if a co-worker is forwarding unsolicited e-mail messages containing jokes, commenting and laughing at these jokes may be encouraging the person to keep forwarding these messages. Completely ignoring such messages may reduce their frequency.

Punishment is another method of reducing the frequency of undesirable behaviours. Punishment involves presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviours. Giving an employee a warning for consistently being late to work is an example of punishment.

An inspiring speech for your reflection

Jon Fisher  (born January 19, 1972) is an entrepreneur, investor, author, speaker, philanthropist and inventor. Fisher is known for a viral commencement speech at the University of San Francisco. Here is an excerpt.

5.4 Motivation in Action: The Case of Trader Joe’s

People in Hawaiian T-shirts. Delicious fresh fruits and vegetables. A place where parking is tight and aisles are tiny. A place where you will be unable to find half the things on your list but will go home satisfied. We are, of course, talking about Trader Joe’s (a privately held company), a unique grocery store headquartered in California and located in 22 states. By selling store-brand and gourmet foods at affordable prices, this chain created a special niche for itself. Yet the helpful employees who stock the shelves and answer questions are definitely key to what makes this store unique and helps it achieve twice the sales of traditional supermarkets.

Shopping here is fun and chatting with employees is a routine part of this experience. Employees are upbeat and friendly to each other and to customers. If you look lost, there is the definite offer of help. But somehow the friendliness does not seem scripted. Instead, if they see you shopping for big trays of cheese, they might casually inquire if you are having a party and then point to other selections. If they see you chasing your toddler, they are quick to tie a balloon to his wrist. When you ask them if they have any cumin, they get down on their knees to check the back of the aisle, with the attitude of helping a guest that is visiting their home. How does a company make sure its employees look like they enjoy being there to help others?

One of the keys to this puzzle is pay. Trader Joe’s sells cheap organic food, but they are not “cheap” when it comes to paying their employees. Employees, including part-timers, are among the best paid in the retail industry. Full-time employees earn an average of $40,150 in their first year and also earn average annual bonuses of $950 with $6,300 in retirement contributions. Store managers’ average compensation is $132,000. With these generous benefits and above-market wages and salaries, the company has no difficulty attracting qualified candidates.

But money only partially explains what energizes Trader Joe’s employees. They work with people who are friendly and upbeat. The environment is collaborative, so that people fill in for each other and managers pick up the slack when the need arises, including tasks like sweeping the floors. Plus, the company promotes solely from within, making Trader Joe’s one of few places in the retail industry where employees can satisfy their career aspirations. Employees are evaluated every 3 months and receive feedback about their performance.

Employees are also given autonomy on the job. They can open a product to have the customers try it and can be honest about their feelings toward different products. They receive on- and off-the-job training and are intimately familiar with the products, which enables them to come up with ideas that are taken seriously by upper management. In short, employees love what they do, work with nice people who treat each other well, and are respected by the company. When employees are treated well, it is no wonder they treat their customers well daily (Lewis, 2005; McGregor et al., 2004; Speizer, 2004).

5.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reviewed the basic motivation theories that have been developed to explain motivated behaviour. Several theories view motivated behaviour as attempts to satisfy needs. Based on this approach, managers would benefit from understanding what people need so that the actions of employees can be understood and managed. Other theories explain motivated behaviour using the cognitive processes of employees. Employees respond to unfairness in their environment, they learn from the consequences of their actions and repeat the behaviours that lead to positive results, and they are motivated to exert effort if they see their actions will lead to outcomes that would get them desired rewards. None of these theories are complete on their own, but each theory provides us with a framework we can use to analyze, interpret, and manage employee behaviours in the workplace.

Organizational Behaviour Copyright © 2019 by Seneca College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

14.3 Process Theories of Motivation

• Describe the process theories of motivation, and compare and contrast the main process theories of motivation: operant conditioning theory, equity theory, goal theory, and expectancy theory.

Process theories of motivation try to explain why behaviors are initiated. These theories focus on the mechanism by which we choose a target, and the effort that we exert to “hit” the target. There are four major process theories: (1) operant conditioning, (2) equity, (3) goal, and (4) expectancy.

Operant Conditioning Theory

Operant conditioning theory is the simplest of the motivation theories. It basically states that people will do those things for which they are rewarded and will avoid doing things for which they are punished. This premise is sometimes called the “law of effect.” However, if this were the sum total of conditioning theory, we would not be discussing it here. Operant conditioning theory does offer greater insights than “reward what you want and punish what you don’t,” and knowledge of its principles can lead to effective management practices.

Operant conditioning focuses on the learning of voluntary behaviors. 18 The term operant conditioning indicates that learning results from our “operating on” the environment. After we “operate on the environment” (that is, behave in a certain fashion), consequences result. These consequences determine the likelihood of similar behavior in the future. Learning occurs because we do something to the environment. The environment then reacts to our action, and our subsequent behavior is influenced by this reaction.

The Basic Operant Model

According to operant conditioning theory , we learn to behave in a particular fashion because of consequences that resulted from our past behaviors. 19 The learning process involves three distinct steps (see Table 14.2 ). The first step involves a stimulus (S). The stimulus is any situation or event we perceive that we then respond to. A homework assignment is a stimulus. The second step involves a response (R), that is, any behavior or action we take in reaction to the stimulus. Staying up late to get your homework assignment in on time is a response. (We use the words response and behavior interchangeably here.) Finally, a consequence (C) is any event that follows our response and that makes the response more or less likely to occur in the future. If Colleen Sullivan receives praise from her superior for working hard, and if getting that praise is a pleasurable event, then it is likely that Colleen will work hard again in the future. If, on the other hand, the superior ignores or criticizes Colleen’s response (working hard), this consequence is likely to make Colleen avoid working hard in the future. It is the experienced consequence (positive or negative) that influences whether a response will be repeated the next time the stimulus is presented.

Reinforcement occurs when a consequence makes it more likely the response/behavior will be repeated in the future. In the previous example, praise from Colleen’s superior is a reinforcer. Extinction occurs when a consequence makes it less likely the response/behavior will be repeated in the future. Criticism from Colleen’s supervisor could cause her to stop working hard on any assignment.

There are three ways to make a response more likely to recur: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and avoidance learning. In addition, there are two ways to make the response less likely to recur: nonreinforcement and punishment.

Making a Response More Likely

According to reinforcement theorists, managers can encourage employees to repeat a behavior if they provide a desirable consequence, or reward, after the behavior is performed. A positive reinforcement is a desirable consequence that satisfies an active need or that removes a barrier to need satisfaction. It can be as simple as a kind word or as major as a promotion. Companies that provide “dinners for two” as awards to those employees who go the extra mile are utilizing positive reinforcement. It is important to note that there are wide variations in what people consider to be a positive reinforcer. Praise from a supervisor may be a powerful reinforcer for some workers (like high-nAch individuals) but not others.

Another technique for making a desired response more likely to be repeated is known as negative reinforcement . When a behavior causes something undesirable to be taken away, the behavior is more likely to be repeated in the future. Managers use negative reinforcement when they remove something unpleasant from an employee’s work environment in the hope that this will encourage the desired behavior. Ted doesn’t like being continually reminded by Philip to work faster (Ted thinks Philip is nagging him), so he works faster at stocking shelves to avoid being criticized. Philip’s reminders are a negative reinforcement for Ted.

Approach using negative reinforcement with extreme caution. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment. Punishment, unlike reinforcement (negative or positive), is intended to make a particular behavior go away (not be repeated). Negative reinforcement, like positive reinforcement, is intended to make a behavior more likely to be repeated in the future. In the previous example, Philip’s reminders simultaneously punished one behavior (slow stocking) and reinforced another (faster stocking). The difference is often a fine one, but it becomes clearer when we identify the behaviors we are trying to encourage (reinforcement) or discourage (punishment).

A third method of making a response more likely to occur involves a process known as avoidance learning. Avoidance learning occurs when we learn to behave in a certain way to avoid encountering an undesired or unpleasant consequence. We may learn to wake up a minute or so before our alarm clock rings so we can turn it off and not hear the irritating buzzer. Some workers learn to get to work on time to avoid the harsh words or punitive actions of their supervisors. Many organizational discipline systems rely heavily on avoidance learning by using the threat of negative consequences to encourage desired behavior. When managers warn an employee not to be late again, when they threaten to fire a careless worker, or when they transfer someone to an undesirable position, they are relying on the power of avoidance learning.

Making a Response Less Likely

At times it is necessary to discourage a worker from repeating an undesirable behavior. The techniques managers use to make a behavior less likely to occur involve doing something that frustrates the individual’s need satisfaction or that removes a currently satisfying circumstance. Punishment is an aversive consequence that follows a behavior and makes it less likely to reoccur.

Note that managers have another alternative, known as nonreinforcement , in which they provide no consequence at all following a worker’s response. Nonreinforcement eventually reduces the likelihood of that response reoccurring, which means that managers who fail to reinforce a worker’s desirable behavior are also likely to see that desirable behavior less often. If Philip never rewards Ted when he finishes stocking on time, for instance, Ted will probably stop trying to beat the clock. Nonreinforcement can also reduce the likelihood that employees will repeat undesirable behaviors, although it doesn’t produce results as quickly as punishment does. Furthermore, if other reinforcing consequences are present, nonreinforcement is unlikely to be effective.

While punishment clearly works more quickly than does nonreinforcement, it has some potentially undesirable side effects. Although punishment effectively tells a person what not to do and stops the undesired behavior, it does not tell them what they should do. In addition, even when punishment works as intended, the worker being punished often develops negative feelings toward the person who does the punishing. Although sometimes it is very difficult for managers to avoid using punishment, it works best when reinforcement is also used. An experiment conducted by two researchers at the University of Kansas found that using nonmonetary reinforcement in addition to punitive disciplinary measures was an effective way to decrease absenteeism in an industrial setting. 20

Schedules of Reinforcement

When a person is learning a new behavior, like how to perform a new job, it is desirable to reinforce effective behaviors every time they are demonstrated (this is called shaping ). But in organizations it is not usually possible to reinforce desired behaviors every time they are performed, for obvious reasons. Moreover, research indicates that constantly reinforcing desired behaviors, termed continuous reinforcement, can be detrimental in the long run. Behaviors that are learned under continuous reinforcement are quickly extinguished (cease to be demonstrated). This is because people will expect a reward (the reinforcement) every time they display the behavior. When they don’t receive it after just a few times, they quickly presume that the behavior will no longer be rewarded, and they quit doing it. Any employer can change employees’ behavior by simply not paying them!

If behaviors cannot (and should not) be reinforced every time they are exhibited, how often should they be reinforced? This is a question about schedules of reinforcement , or the frequency at which effective employee behaviors should be reinforced. Much of the early research on operant conditioning focused on the best way to maintain the performance of desired behaviors. That is, it attempted to determine how frequently behaviors need to be rewarded so that they are not extinguished. Research zeroed in on four types of reinforcement schedules:

Fixed Ratio. With this schedule, a fixed number of responses (let’s say five) must be exhibited before any of the responses are reinforced. If the desired response is coming to work on time, then giving employees a $25 bonus for being punctual every day from Monday through Friday would be a fixed ratio of reinforcement.

Variable Ratio. A variable-ratio schedule reinforces behaviors, on average, a fixed number of times (again let’s say five). Sometimes the tenth behavior is reinforced, other times the first, but on average every fifth response is reinforced. People who perform under such variable-ratio schedules like this don’t know when they will be rewarded, but they do know that they will be rewarded.

Fixed Interval. In a fixed-interval schedule, a certain amount of time must pass before a behavior is reinforced. With a one-hour fixed-interval schedule, for example, a supervisor visits an employee’s workstation and reinforces the first desired behavior she sees. She returns one hour later and reinforces the next desirable behavior. This schedule doesn’t imply that reinforcement will be received automatically after the passage of the time period. The time must pass and an appropriate response must be made.

Variable Interval. The variable interval differs from fixed-interval schedules in that the specified time interval passes on average before another appropriate response is reinforced. Sometimes the time period is shorter than the average; sometimes it is longer.

Which type of reinforcement schedule is best? In general, continuous reinforcement is best while employees are learning their jobs or new duties. After that, variable-ratio reinforcement schedules are superior. In most situations the fixed-interval schedule produces the least effective results, with fixed ratio and variable interval falling in between the two extremes. But remember that effective behaviors must be reinforced with some type of schedule, or they may become extinguished.

Equity Theory

Suppose you have worked for a company for several years. Your performance has been excellent, you have received regular pay increases, and you get along with your boss and coworkers. One day you come to work to find that a new person has been hired to work at the same job that you do. You are pleased to have the extra help. Then, you find out the new person is making $100 more per week than you, despite your longer service and greater experience. How do you feel? If you’re like most of us, you’re quite unhappy. Your satisfaction has just evaporated. Nothing about your job has changed—you receive the same pay, do the same job, and work for the same supervisor. Yet, the addition of one new employee has transformed you from a happy to an unhappy employee. This feeling of unfairness is the basis for equity theory.

Equity theory states that motivation is affected by the outcomes we receive for our inputs compared to the outcomes and inputs of other people. 21 This theory is concerned with the reactions people have to outcomes they receive as part of a “social exchange.” According to equity theory, our reactions to the outcomes we receive from others (an employer) depend both on how we value those outcomes in an absolute sense and on the circumstances surrounding their receipt. Equity theory suggests that our reactions will be influenced by our perceptions of the “inputs” provided in order to receive these outcomes (“Did I get as much out of this as I put into it?”). Even more important is our comparison of our inputs to what we believe others received for their inputs (“Did I get as much for my inputs as my coworkers got for theirs?”).

The Basic Equity Model

The fundamental premise of equity theory is that we continuously monitor the degree to which our work environment is “fair.” In determining the degree of fairness, we consider two sets of factors, inputs and outcomes (see Exhibit 14.11 ). Inputs are any factors we contribute to the organization that we feel have value and are relevant to the organization. Note that the value attached to an input is based on our perception of its relevance and value. Whether or not anyone else agrees that the input is relevant or valuable is unimportant to us. Common inputs in organizations include time, effort, performance level, education level, skill levels, and bypassed opportunities. Since any factor we consider relevant is included in our evaluation of equity, it is not uncommon for factors to be included that the organization (or even the law) might argue are inappropriate (such as age, sex, ethnic background, or social status).

Outcomes are anything we perceive as getting back from the organization in exchange for our inputs. Again, the value attached to an outcome is based on our perceptions and not necessarily on objective reality. Common outcomes from organizations include pay, working conditions, job status, feelings of achievement, and friendship opportunities. Both positive and negative outcomes influence our evaluation of equity. Stress, headaches, and fatigue are also potential outcomes. Since any outcome we consider relevant to the exchange influences our equity perception, we frequently include unintended factors (peer disapproval, family reactions).

Equity theory predicts that we will compare our outcomes to our inputs in the form of a ratio. On the basis of this ratio we make an initial determination of whether or not the situation is equitable. If we perceive that the outcomes we receive are commensurate with our inputs, we are satisfied. If we believe that the outcomes are not commensurate with our inputs, we are dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction can lead to ineffective behaviors for the organization if they continue. The key feature of equity theory is that it predicts that we will compare our ratios to the ratios of other people. It is this comparison of the two ratios that has the strongest effect on our equity perceptions. These other people are called referent others because we “refer to” them when we judge equity. Usually, referent others are people we work with who perform work of a similar nature. That is, referent others perform jobs that are similar in difficulty and complexity to the employee making the equity determination (see Exhibit 14.11 ).

Three conditions can result from this comparison. Our outcome-to-input ratio could equal the referent other’s. This is a state of equity . A second result could be that our ratio is greater than the referent other’s. This is a state of overreward inequity . The third result could be that we perceive our ratio to be less than that of the referent other. This is a state of underreward inequity .

Equity theory has a lot to say about basic human tendencies. The motivation to compare our situation to that of others is strong. For example, what is the first thing you do when you get an exam back in class? Probably look at your score and make an initial judgment as to its fairness. For a lot of people, the very next thing they do is look at the scores received by fellow students who sit close to them. A 75 percent score doesn’t look so bad if everyone else scored lower! This is equity theory in action.

Most workers in the United States are at least partially dissatisfied with their pay. 22 Equity theory helps explain this. Two human tendencies create feelings of inequity that are not based in reality. One is that we tend to overrate our performance levels. For example, one study conducted by your authors asked more than 600 employees to anonymously rate their performance on a 7-point scale (1 = poor, 7 = excellent). The average was 6.2, meaning the average employee rated his or her performance as very good to excellent. This implies that the average employee also expects excellent pay increases, a policy most employers cannot afford if they are to remain competitive. Another study found that the average employee (one whose performance is better than half of the other employees and worse than the other half) rated her performance at the 80th percentile (better than 80 percent of the other employees, worse than 20 percent). 23 Again it would be impossible for most organizations to reward the average employee at the 80th percentile. In other words, most employees inaccurately overrate the inputs they provide to an organization. This leads to perceptions of inequity that are not justified.

The second human tendency that leads to unwarranted perceptions of inequity is our tendency to overrate the outcomes of others. 24 Many employers keep the pay levels of employees a “secret.” Still other employers actually forbid employees to talk about their pay. This means that many employees don’t know for certain how much their colleagues are paid. And, because most of us overestimate the pay of others, we tend to think that they’re paid more than they actually are, and the unjustified perceptions of inequity are perpetuated.

The bottom line for employers is that they need to be sensitive to employees’ need for equity. Employers need to do everything they can to prevent feelings of inequity because employees engage in effective behaviors when they perceive equity and ineffective behaviors when they perceive inequity.

Perceived Overreward Inequity

When we perceive that overreward inequity exists (that is, we unfairly make more than others), it is rare that we are so dissatisfied, guilty, or sufficiently motivated that we make changes to produce a state of perceived equity (or we leave the situation). Indeed, feelings of overreward, when they occur, are quite transient. Very few of us go to our employers and complain that we’re overpaid! Most people are less sensitive to overreward inequities than they are to underreward inequities. 25 However infrequently they are used for overreward, the same types of actions are available for dealing with both types of inequity.

Perceived Underreward Inequity

When we perceive that underreward inequity exists (that is, others unfairly make more than we do), we will likely be dissatisfied, angered, and motivated to change the situation (or escape the situation) in order to produce a state of perceived equity. As we discuss shortly, people can take many actions to deal with underreward inequity.

Reducing Underreward Inequity

A simple situation helps explain the consequences of inequity. Two automobile workers in Detroit, John and Mary, fasten lug nuts to wheels on cars as they come down the assembly line, John on the left side and Mary on the right. Their inputs are equal (both fasten the same number of lug nuts at the same pace), but John makes $500 per week and Mary makes $600. Their equity ratios are thus:

As you can see, their ratios are not equal; that is, Mary receives greater outcome for equal input. Who is experiencing inequity? According to equity theory, both John and Mary—underreward inequity for John, and overreward inequity for Mary. Mary’s inequity won’t last long (in real organizations), but in our hypothetical example, what might John do to resolve this?

Adams identified a number of things people do to reduce the tension produced by a perceived state of inequity. They change their own outcomes or inputs, or they change those of the referent other. They distort their own perceptions of the outcomes or inputs of either party by using a different referent other, or they leave the situation in which the inequity is occurring.

• Alter inputs of the person. The perceived state of equity can be altered by changing our own inputs, that is, by decreasing the quantity or quality of our performance. John can affect his own mini slowdown and install only nine lug nuts on each car as it comes down the production line. This, of course, might cause him to lose his job, so he probably won’t choose this alternative.
• Alter outcomes of the person. We could attempt to increase outcomes to achieve a state of equity, like ask for a raise, a nicer office, a promotion, or other positively valued outcomes. So John will likely ask for a raise. Unfortunately, many people enhance their outcomes by stealing from their employers.
• Alter inputs of the referent other. When underrewarded, we may try to achieve a state of perceived equity by encouraging the referent other to increase their inputs. We may demand, for example, that the referent other “start pulling their weight,” or perhaps help the referent other to become a better performer. It doesn’t matter that the referent other is already pulling their weight—remember, this is all about perception. In our example, John could ask Mary to put on two of his ten lug nuts as each car comes down the assembly line. This would not likely happen, however, so John would be motivated to try another alternative to reduce his inequity.
• Alter outcomes of the referent other. We can “correct” a state of underreward by directly or indirectly reducing the value of the other’s outcomes. In our example, John could try to get Mary’s pay lowered to reduce his inequity. This too would probably not occur in the situation described.
• Distort perceptions of inputs or outcomes. It is possible to reduce a perceived state of inequity without changing input or outcome. We simply distort our own perceptions of our inputs or outcomes, or we distort our perception of those of the referent other. Thus, John may tell himself that “Mary does better work than I thought” or “she enjoys her work much less than I do” or “she gets paid less than I realized.”
• Choose a different referent other. We can also deal with both over- and underreward inequities by changing the referent other (“my situation is really more like Ahmed’s”). This is the simplest and most powerful way to deal with perceived inequity: it requires neither actual nor perceptual changes in anybody’s input or outcome, and it causes us to look around and assess our situation more carefully. For example, John might choose as a referent other Bill, who installs dashboards but makes less money than John.
• Leave the situation. A final technique for dealing with a perceived state of inequity involves removing ourselves from the situation. We can choose to accomplish this through absenteeism, transfer, or termination. This approach is usually not selected unless the perceived inequity is quite high or other attempts at achieving equity are not readily available. Most automobile workers are paid quite well for their work. John is unlikely to find an equivalent job, so it is also unlikely that he will choose this option.

Implications of Equity Theory

Equity theory is widely used, and its implications are clear. In the vast majority of cases, employees experience (or perceive) underreward inequity rather than overreward. As discussed above, few of the behaviors that result from underreward inequity are good for employers. Thus, employers try to prevent unnecessary perceptions of inequity. They do this in a number of ways. They try to be as fair as possible in allocating pay. That is, they measure performance levels as accurately as possible, then give the highest performers the highest pay increases. Second, most employers are no longer secretive about their pay schedules. People are naturally curious about how much they are paid relative to others in the organization. This doesn’t mean that employers don’t practice discretion—they usually don’t reveal specific employees’ exact pay. But they do tell employees the minimum and maximum pay levels for their jobs and the pay scales for the jobs of others in the organization. Such practices give employees a factual basis for judging equity.

Supervisors play a key role in creating perceptions of equity. “Playing favorites” ensures perceptions of inequity. Employees want to be rewarded on their merits, not the whims of their supervisors. In addition, supervisors need to recognize differences in employees in their reactions to inequity. Some employees are highly sensitive to inequity, and a supervisor needs to be especially cautious around them. 26 Everyone is sensitive to reward allocation. 27 But “equity sensitives” are even more sensitive. A major principle for supervisors, then, is simply to implement fairness. Never base punishment or reward on whether or not you like an employee. Reward behaviors that contribute to the organization, and discipline those that do not. Make sure employees understand what is expected of them, and praise them when they do it. These practices make everyone happier and your job easier.

Goal Theory

No theory is perfect. If it was, it wouldn’t be a theory. It would be a set of facts. Theories are sets of propositions that are right more often than they are wrong, but they are not infallible. However, the basic propositions of goal theory* come close to being infallible. Indeed, it is one of the strongest theories in organizational behavior.

The Basic Goal-Setting Model

Goal theory states that people will perform better if they have difficult, specific, accepted performance goals or objectives. 28 , 29 The first and most basic premise of goal theory is that people will attempt to achieve those goals that they intend to achieve. Thus, if we intend to do something (like get an A on an exam), we will exert effort to accomplish it. Without such goals, our effort at the task (studying) required to achieve the goal is less. Students whose goals are to get As study harder than students who don’t have this goal—we all know this. This doesn’t mean that people without goals are unmotivated. It simply means that people with goals are more motivated. The intensity of their motivation is greater, and they are more directed.

The second basic premise is that difficult goals result in better performance than easy goals. This does not mean that difficult goals are always achieved, but our performance will usually be better when we intend to achieve harder goals. Your goal of an A in Classical Mechanics at Cal Tech may not get you your A, but it may earn you a B+, which you wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. Difficult goals cause us to exert more effort, and this almost always results in better performance.

Another premise of goal theory is that specific goals are better than vague goals. We often wonder what we need to do to be successful. Have you ever asked a professor “What do I need to do to get an A in this course?” If she responded “Do well on the exams,” you weren’t much better off for having asked. This is a vague response. Goal theory says that we perform better when we have specific goals. Had your professor told you the key thrust of the course, to turn in all the problem sets, to pay close attention to the essay questions on exams, and to aim for scores in the 90s, you would have something concrete on which to build a strategy.

A key premise of goal theory is that people must accept the goal. Usually we set our own goals. But sometimes others set goals for us. Your professor telling you your goal is to “score at least a 90 percent on your exams” doesn’t mean that you’ll accept this goal. Maybe you don’t feel you can achieve scores in the 90s. Or, you’ve heard that 90 isn’t good enough for an A in this class. This happens in work organizations quite often. Supervisors give orders that something must be done by a certain time. The employees may fully understand what is wanted, yet if they feel the order is unreasonable or impossible, they may not exert much effort to accomplish it. Thus, it is important for people to accept the goal. They need to feel that it is also their goal. If they do not, goal theory predicts that they won’t try as hard to achieve it.

Goal theory also states that people need to commit to a goal in addition to accepting it. Goal commitment is the degree to which we dedicate ourselves to achieving a goal. Goal commitment is about setting priorities. We can accept many goals (go to all classes, stay awake during classes, take lecture notes), but we often end up doing only some of them. In other words, some goals are more important than others. And we exert more effort for certain goals. This also happens frequently at work. A software analyst’s major goal may be to write a new program. Her minor goal may be to maintain previously written programs. It is minor because maintaining old programs is boring, while writing new ones is fun. Goal theory predicts that her commitment, and thus her intensity, to the major goal will be greater.

Allowing people to participate in the goal-setting process often results in higher goal commitment. This has to do with ownership. And when people participate in the process, they tend to incorporate factors they think will make the goal more interesting, challenging, and attainable. Thus, it is advisable to allow people some input into the goal-setting process. Imposing goals on them from the outside usually results in less commitment (and acceptance).

The basic goal-setting model is shown in Exhibit 14.12 . The process starts with our values. Values are our beliefs about how the world should be or act, and often include words like “should” or “ought.” We compare our present conditions against these values. For example, Randi holds the value that everyone should be a hard worker. After measuring her current work against this value, Randi concludes that she doesn’t measure up to her own value. Following this, her goal-setting process begins. Randi will set a goal that affirms her status as a hard worker. Exhibit 14.12 lists the four types of goals. Some goals are self-set. (Randi decides to word process at least 70 pages per day.) Participative goals are jointly set. (Randi goes to her supervisor, and together they set some appropriate goals for her.) In still other cases, goals are assigned. (Her boss tells her that she must word process at least 60 pages per day.) The fourth type of goal, which can be self-set, jointly determined, or assigned, is a “do your best” goal. But note this goal is vague, so it usually doesn’t result in the best performance.

Depending on the characteristics of Randi’s goals, she may or may not exert a lot of effort. For maximum effort to result, her goals should be difficult, specific, accepted, and committed to. Then, if she has sufficient ability and lack of constraints, maximum performance should occur. Examples of constraints could be that her old computer frequently breaks down or her supervisor constantly interferes.

The consequence of endeavoring to reach her goal will be that Randi will be satisfied with herself. Her behavior is consistent with her values. She’ll be even more satisfied if her supervisor praises her performance and gives her a pay increase!

In Randi’s case, her goal achievement resulted in several benefits. However, this doesn’t always happen. If goals are not achieved, people may be unhappy with themselves, and their employer may be dissatisfied as well. Such an experience can make a person reluctant to accept goals in the future. Thus, setting difficult yet attainable goals cannot be stressed enough.

Goal theory can be a tremendous motivational tool. In fact, many organizations practice effective management by using a technique called “management by objectives” (MBO). MBO is based on goal theory and is quite effective when implemented consistently with goal theory’s basic premises.

Despite its many strengths, several cautions about goal theory are appropriate. Locke has identified most of them. 30 First, setting goals in one area can lead people to neglect other areas. (Randi may word process 70 pages per day, but neglect her proofreading responsibilities.) It is important that goals be set for most major duties. Second, goal setting sometimes has unintended consequences. For example, employees set easy goals so that they look good when they achieve them. Or it causes unhealthy competition between employees. Or an employee sabotages the work of others so that only she has goal achievement.

Some managers use goal setting in unethical ways. They may manipulate employees by setting impossible goals. This enables them to criticize employees even when the employees are doing superior work and, of course, causes much stress. Goal setting should never be abused. Perhaps the key caution about goal setting is that it often results in too much focus on quantified measures of performance. Qualitative aspects of a job or task may be neglected because they aren’t easily measured. Managers must keep employees focused on the qualitative aspects of their jobs as well as the quantitative ones. Finally, setting individual goals in a teamwork environment can be counterproductive. 31 Where possible, it is preferable to have group goals in situations where employees depend on one another in the performance of their jobs.

The cautions noted here are not intended to deter you from using goal theory. We note them so that you can avoid the pitfalls. Remember, employees have a right to reasonable performance expectations and the rewards that result from performance, and organizations have a right to expect high performance levels from employees. Goal theory should be used to optimize the employment relationship. Goal theory holds that people will exert effort to accomplish goals if those goals are difficult to achieve, accepted by the individual, and specific in nature.

Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory posits that we will exert much effort to perform at high levels so that we can obtain valued outcomes. It is the motivation theory that many organizational behavior researchers find most intriguing, in no small part because it is currently also the most comprehensive theory. Expectancy theory ties together many of the concepts and hypotheses from the theories discussed earlier in this chapter. In addition, it points to factors that other theories miss. Expectancy theory has much to offer the student of management and organizational behavior.

Expectancy theory is sufficiently general that it is useful in a wide variety of situations. Choices between job offers, between working hard or not so hard, between going to work or not—virtually any set of possibilities can be addressed by expectancy theory. Basically, the theory focuses on two related issues:

• When faced with two or more alternatives, which will we select?
• Once an alternative is chosen, how motivated will we be to pursue that choice?

Expectancy theory thus focuses on the two major aspects of motivation, direction (which alternative?) and intensity (how much effort to implement the alternative?). The attractiveness of an alternative is determined by our “expectations” of what is likely to happen if we choose it. The more we believe that the alternative chosen will lead to positively valued outcomes, the greater its attractiveness to us.

Expectancy theory states that, when faced with two or more alternatives, we will select the most attractive one. And, the greater the attractiveness of the chosen alternative, the more motivated we will be to pursue it. Our natural hedonism, discussed earlier in this chapter, plays a role in this process. We are motivated to maximize desirable outcomes (a pay raise) and minimize undesirable ones (discipline). Expectancy theory goes on to state that we are also logical in our decisions about alternatives. It considers people to be rational. People evaluate alternatives in terms of their “pros and cons,” and then choose the one with the most “pros” and fewest “cons.”

The Basic Expectancy Model

The three major components of expectancy theory reflect its assumptions of hedonism and rationality: effort-performance expectancy, performance-outcome expectancy, and valences.

The effort-performance expectancy , abbreviated E1, is the perceived probability that effort will lead to performance (or E ➨ P). Performance here means anything from doing well on an exam to assembling 100 toasters a day at work. Sometimes people believe that no matter how much effort they exert, they won’t perform at a high level. They have weak E1s. Other people have strong E1s and believe the opposite—that is, that they can perform at a high level if they exert high effort. You all know students with different E1s—those who believe that if they study hard they’ll do well, and those who believe that no matter how much they study they’ll do poorly. People develop these perceptions from prior experiences with the task at hand, and from self-perceptions of their abilities. The core of the E1 concept is that people don’t always perceive a direct relationship between effort level and performance level.

The performance-outcome expectancy , E2, is the perceived relationship between performance and outcomes (or P ➨ O). 1 Many things in life happen as a function of how well we perform various tasks. E2 addresses the question “What will happen if I perform well?” Let’s say you get an A in your Classical Mechanics course at Cal Tech. You’ll be elated, your classmates may envy you, and you are now assured of that plum job at NASA. But let’s say you got a D. Whoops, that was the last straw for the dean. Now you’ve flunked out, and you’re reduced to going home to live with your parents (perish the thought!). Likewise, E2 perceptions develop in organizations, although hopefully not as drastically as your beleaguered career at Cal Tech. People with strong E2s believe that if they perform their jobs well, they’ll receive desirable outcomes—good pay increases, praise from their supervisor, and a feeling that they’re really contributing. In the same situation, people with weak E2s will have the opposite perceptions—that high performance levels don’t result in desirable outcomes and that it doesn’t really matter how well they perform their jobs as long as they don’t get fired.

Valences are the easiest of the expectancy theory concepts to describe. Valences are simply the degree to which we perceive an outcome as desirable, neutral, or undesirable. Highly desirable outcomes (a 25 percent pay increase) are positively valent. Undesirable outcomes (being disciplined) are negatively valent. Outcomes that we’re indifferent to (where you must park your car) have neutral valences. Positively and negatively valent outcomes abound in the workplace—pay increases and freezes, praise and criticism, recognition and rejection, promotions and demotions. And as you would expect, people differ dramatically in how they value these outcomes. Our needs, values, goals, and life situations affect what valence we give an outcome. Equity is another consideration we use in assigning valences. We may consider a 10 percent pay increase desirable until we find out that it was the lowest raise given in our work group.

Exhibit 14.13 summarizes the three core concepts of expectancy theory. The theory states that our perceptions about our surroundings are essentially predictions about “what leads to what.” We perceive that certain effort levels result in certain performance levels. We perceive that certain performance levels result in certain outcomes. Outcomes can be extrinsic , in that others (our supervisor) determine whether we receive them, or intrinsic , in that we determine if they are received (our sense of achievement). Each outcome has an associated valence (outcome A’s valence is V a V a ). Expectancy theory predicts that we will exert effort that results in the maximum amount of positive-valence outcomes. 2 If our E1 or E2 is weak, or if the outcomes are not sufficiently desirable, our motivation to exert effort will be low. Stated differently, an individual will be motivated to try to achieve the level of performance that results in the most rewards.

V o is the valence of the outcome. The effort level with the greatest force associated with it will be chosen by the individual.

Implications of Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory has major implications for the workplace. Basically, expectancy theory predicts that employees will be motivated to perform well on their jobs under two conditions. The first is when employees believe that a reasonable amount of effort will result in good performance. The second is when good performance is associated with positive outcomes and low performance is associated with negative outcomes. If neither of these conditions exists in the perceptions of employees, their motivation to perform will be low.

Why might an employee perceive that positive outcomes are not associated with high performance? Or that negative outcomes are not associated with low performance? That is, why would employees develop weak E2s? This happens for a number of reasons. The main one is that many organizations subscribe too strongly to a principle of equality (not to be confused with equity). They give all of their employees equal salaries for equal work, equal pay increases every year (these are known as across-the-board pay raises), and equal treatment wherever possible. Equality-focused organizations reason that some employees “getting more” than others leads to disruptive competition and feelings of inequity.

In time employees in equality-focused organizations develop weak E2s because no distinctions are made for differential outcomes. If the best and the worst salespeople are paid the same, in time they will both decide that it isn’t worth the extra effort to be a high performer. Needless to say, this is not the goal of competitive organizations and can cause the demise of the organization as it competes with other firms in today’s global marketplace.

Expectancy theory states that to maximize motivation, organizations must make outcomes contingent on performance. This is the main contribution of expectancy theory: it makes us think about how organizations should distribute outcomes. If an organization, or a supervisor, believes that treating everyone “the same” will result in satisfied and motivated employees, they will be wrong more times than not. From equity theory we know that some employees, usually the better-performing ones, will experience underreward inequity. From expectancy theory we know that employees will see no difference in outcomes for good and poor performance, so they will not have as much incentive to be good performers. Effective organizations need to actively encourage the perception that good performance leads to positive outcomes (bonuses, promotions) and that poor performance leads to negative ones (discipline, termination). Remember, there is a big difference between treating employees equally and treating them equitably.

What if an organization ties positive outcomes to high performance and negative outcomes to low performance? Employees will develop strong E2s. But will this result in highly motivated employees? The answer is maybe. We have yet to address employees’ E1s. If employees have weak E1s, they will perceive that high (or low) effort does not result in high performance and thus will not exert much effort. It is important for managers to understand that this can happen despite rewards for high performance.

Task-related abilities are probably the single biggest reason why some employees have weak E1s. Self-efficacy is our belief about whether we can successfully execute some future action or task, or achieve some result. High self-efficacy employees believe that they are likely to succeed at most or all of their job duties and responsibilities. And as you would expect, low self-efficacy employees believe the opposite. Specific self-efficacy reflects our belief in our capability to perform a specific task at a specific level of performance. If we believe that the probability of our selling $30,000 of jackrabbit slippers in one month is .90, our self-efficacy for this task is high. Specific self-efficacy is our judgment about the likelihood of successful task performance measured immediately before we expend effort on the task. As a result, specific self-efficacy is much more variable than more enduring notions of personality. Still, there is little doubt that our state-based beliefs are some of the most powerful motivators of behavior. Our efficacy expectations at a given point in time determine not only our initial decision to perform (or not) a task, but also the amount of effort we will expend and whether we will persist in the face of adversity. 32 Self-efficacy has a strong impact on the E1 factor. As a result, self-efficacy is one of the strongest determinants of performance in any particular task situation. 33

Employees develop weak E1s for two reasons. First, they don’t have sufficient resources to perform their jobs. Resources can be internal or external. Internal resources include what employees bring to the job (such as prior training, work experience, education, ability, and aptitude) and their understanding of what they need to do to be considered good performers. The second resource is called role perceptions—how employees believe their jobs are done and how they fit into the broader organization. If employees don’t know how to become good performers, they will have weak E1s. External resources include the tools, equipment, and labor necessary to perform a job. The lack of good external resources can also cause E1s to be weak.

The second reason for weak E1s is an organization’s failure to measure performance accurately. That is, performance ratings don’t correlate well with actual performance levels. How does this happen? Have you ever gotten a grade that you felt didn’t reflect how much you learned? This also happens in organizations. Why are ratings sometimes inaccurate? Supervisors, who typically give out ratings, well, they’re human. Perhaps they’re operating under the mistaken notion that similar ratings for everyone will keep the team happy. Perhaps they’re unconsciously playing favorites. Perhaps they don’t know what good and poor performance levels are. Perhaps the measurements they’re expected to use don’t fit their product/team/people. Choose one or all of these. Rating people is rarely easy.

Whatever the cause of rating errors, some employees may come to believe that no matter what they do they will never receive a high performance rating. They may in fact believe that they are excellent performers but that the performance rating system is flawed. Expectancy theory differs from most motivation theories because it highlights the need for accurate performance measurement. Organizations cannot motivate employees to perform at a high level if they cannot identify high performers.

Organizations exert tremendous influence over employee choices in their performance levels and how much effort to exert on their jobs. That is, organizations can have a major impact on the direction and intensity of employees’ motivation levels. Practical applications of expectancy theory include:

• Strengthening the effort ➨ performance expectancy by selecting employees who have the necessary abilities, providing proper training, providing experiences of success, clarifying job responsibilities, etc.
• Strengthening the performance ➨ outcome expectancy with policies that specify that desirable behavior leads to desirable outcomes and undesirable behavior leads to neutral or undesirable outcomes. Consistent enforcement of these policies is key—workers must believe in the contingencies.
• Systematically evaluating which outcomes employees value. The greater the valence of outcomes offered for a behavior, the more likely employees will commit to that alternative. By recognizing that different employees have different values and that values change over time, organizations can provide the most highly valued outcomes.
• Ensuring that effort actually translates into performance by clarifying what actions lead to performance and by appropriate training.
• Ensuring appropriate worker outcomes for performance through reward schedules (extrinsic outcomes) and appropriate job design (so the work experience itself provides intrinsic outcomes).
• Examining the level of outcomes provided to workers. Are they equitable, given the worker’s inputs? Are they equitable in comparison to the way other workers are treated?
• Measuring performance levels as accurately as possible, making sure that workers are capable of being high performers.

Managing Change

Differences in motivation across cultures.

The disgruntled employee is hardly a culturally isolated feature of business, and quitting before leaving takes the same forms, regardless of country. Cross-cultural signaling, social norms, and simple language barriers can make the task of motivation for the global manager confusing and counterintuitive. Communicating a passion for a common vision, coaching employees to see themselves as accountable and as owning their work, or attempting to create a “motivational ecosystem” can all fall flat with simple missed cues, bad translations, or tone-deaf approaches to a thousand-year-old culture.

Keeping employees motivated by making them feel valued and appreciated is not just a “Western” idea. The Ghanaian blog site Starrfmonline emphasizes that employee motivation and associated work quality improve when employees feel “valued, trusted, challenged, and supported in their work.” Conversely, when employees feel like a tool rather than a person, or feel unengaged with their work, then productivity suffers. A vicious cycle can then begin when the manager treats an employee as unmotivated and incapable, which then demotivates the employee and elicits the predicted response. The blogger cites an example from Eastern Europe where a manager sidelined an employee as inefficient and incompetent. After management coaching, the manager revisited his assessment and began working with the employee. As he worked to facilitate the employee’s efficiency and motivation, the employee went from being the lowest performer to a valuable team player. In the end, the blog says, “The very phrase ‘human resources’ frames employees as material to be deployed for organizational objectives. While the essential nature of employment contracts involves trading labour for remuneration, if we fail to see and appreciate our employees as whole people, efforts to motivate them will meet with limited success” (Starrfmonline 2017 n.p.)

Pavel Vosk, a business and management consultant based in Puyallup, Washington, says that too often, overachieving employees turn into unmotivated ones. In looking for the answer, he found that the most common source was a lack of recognition for the employee’s effort or exceptional performance. In fact, Vosk found that most employees go the extra mile only three times before they give up. Vosk’s advice is to show gratitude for employees’ effort, especially when it goes above and beyond. He says the recognition doesn’t have to be over the top, just anything that the employees will perceive as gratitude, from a catered lunch for a team working extra hours to fulfill a deadline to a simple face-to-face thank you (Huhman 2017).

Richard Frazao, president of Quaketek, based in Montreal, Quebec, stresses talking to the employees and making certain they are engaged in their jobs, citing boredom with one’s job as a major demotivating factor (Huhman 2017).

But motivating employees is not “one size fits all” globally. Rewarding and recognizing individuals and their achievements works fine in Western cultures but is undesirable in Asian cultures, which value teamwork and the collective over the individual. Whether to reward effort with a pay raise or with a job title or larger office is influenced by culture. Demoting an employee for poor performance is an effective motivator in Asian countries but is likely to result in losing an employee altogether in Western cultures. According to Matthew MacLachlan at Communicaid, “Making the assumption that your international workforce will be motivated by the same incentives can be dangerous and have a real impact on talent retention” (2016 n.p.).

Huhman, Heather R. 2017. “Employee Motivation Has to Be More Than 'a Pat on the Back.’” Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287770

MacLachlan, Matthew. 2016. “Management Tips: How To Motivate Your International Workforce.” Communicaid. https://www.communicaid.com/cross-cultural-training/blog/motivating-international-workforce/

Starrfmonline. 2017. “HR Today: Motivating People Starts With Right Attitude.”

http://starrfmonline.com/2017/03/30/hr-today-motivating-people-starts-with-right-attitude/#

• As a Western manager working in the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, what motivational issues might you face?
• What problems would you expect a manager from a Confucian culture to encounter managing employees in America? In Europe?
• What regional, cultural, or ethnic issues do you think managers have to navigate within the United States?

Expectancy Theory: An Integrative Theory of Motivation

More so than any other motivation theory, expectancy theory can be tied into most concepts of what and how people become motivated. Consider the following examples.

• Need theories state that we are motivated to satisfy our needs. We positively value outcomes that satisfy unmet needs, negatively value outcomes that thwart the satisfaction of unmet needs, and assign neutral values to outcomes that do neither. In effect, the need theories explain how valences are formed.
• Operant conditioning theories state that we will probably repeat a response (behavior) in the future that was reinforced in the past (that is, followed by a positively valued consequence or the removal of a negatively valued consequence). This is the basic process involved in forming performance ➨ outcome expectancies. Both operant theories and expectancy theory argue that our interactions with our environment influence our future behavior. The primary difference is that expectancy theory explains this process in cognitive (rational) terms.
• Equity theories state that our satisfaction with a set of outcomes depends not only on how we value them but also on the circumstances surrounding their receipt. Equity theory, therefore, explains part of the process shown in Exhibit 14.11 . If we don’t feel that the outcomes we receive are equitable compared to a referent other, we will associate a lower or even negative valence with those outcomes.
• Goal theory can be integrated with the expanded expectancy model in several ways. Locke has noted that expectancy theory explains how we go about choosing a particular goal. 34 A reexamination of Exhibit 14.11 reveals other similarities between goal theory and expectancy theory. Locke’s use of the term “goal acceptance” to identify the personal adoption of a goal is similar to the “choice of an alternative” in the expectancy model. Locke’s “goal commitment,” the degree to which we commit to reaching our accepted (chosen) goal, is very much like the expectancy description of choice of effort level. Locke argues that the difficulty and specificity of a goal are major determinants of the level of performance attempted (goal-directed effort), and expectancy theory appears to be consistent with this argument (even though expectancy theory is not as explicit on this point). We can reasonably conclude that the major underlying processes explored by the two models are very similar and will seldom lead to inconsistent recommendations.

Concept Check

• Understand the process theories of motivation: operant conditioning, equity, goal, and expectancy theories.
• Describe the managerial factors managers must consider when applying motivational approaches.
• 1 Sometimes E2s are called instrumentalities, because they are the perception that performance is instrumental in getting some desired outcome.
• 2 It can also be expressed as an equation: F o r c e   to Choose = E1 × ∑ ( E2 o × V o ) A   level   of   Effort F o r c e   to Choose = E1 × ∑ ( E2 o × V o ) A   level   of   Effort Where V o V o is the valence of a given outcome (o), and E2 o E2 o is the perceived probability that a certain level of performance (e.g., Excellent, average, poor) will result in that outcome. So, for multiple outcomes, and different performance levels, the valence of the outcome and its associated performance➔outcome expectancy (E2) are multiplied and added to the analogous value for the other outcomes. Combined with the E1 (the amount of effort required to produce a level of performance), the effort level with the greatest force associated with it will be chosen by the individual.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Principles of Management
• Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/14-3-process-theories-of-motivation

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Motivation Assignment

• Texas A&M University-Commerce

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• J Abnorm Soc Psychol
• J. Stacy Adams
• B. F. Skinner
• Abraham H. Maslow
• B F Skinner
• ADMIN SCI QUART
• Victor H Vroom
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Basic concepts and theories in Motivation

Motivation is defined as the process that initiates, guides and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. Motivation is what causes us to act, whether it is getting a glass of water to reduce thirst or reading a book to gain knowledge.

According to Arnold, there are 3 components of motivation :

• direction – what a person is trying to do
• effort – how hard a person is trying
• persistence – how long a person keeps on trying

Direction might point the way, but effort is what establishes momentum, and persistence determines how far the change is carried (in time as well as in magnitude of outcome).  Hence, Arnold’s 3 components are suitable to describe the level of motivation a person or a team shows. This concept does not give any reasons for motivation.

Furthermore, literature distinguishes 2 types of factors that influence motivation :

• Intrinsic – self generated factors (responsibility, freedom to act, scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and challenging work, opportunities for advancement) – they have a deeper and longer-term effect
• Extrinsic – what is done for people to motivate them (rewards, promotion, punishment) – they have an immediate and powerful effect, but won’t necessarily last long

In other words: Intrinsic motivation comes from a person’s internal desire to do something. Reasons may be that a particular activity gives him or her pleasure, helps to develop a particular skill of seems to be the right thing to do in moral / ethical terms. Extrinsic motivation is generated by external factors that are less related to the particular task.

Most influential is the Needs (content) Theory

• All Needs theories focus on specific needs people want to satisfy. There are several theories that explain motivation as a result of these needs.
• The underlying concept is the belief that an unsatisfied need creates tension and a state of disequilibrium. To restore balance, a goal is identified that will satisfy the need and a behavior pathway to this goal is selected.
• All behavior is motivated by unsatisfied needs.
• People will be better motivated if their work experience satisfies their needs and wants.
• Needs theories distinguish between primary needs, such as food, sleep and other biological needs, and secondary psychological needs that are learned and vary by culture and by individual.

Maslows hierarchy of needs

• If a lower need is satisfied, it no longer motivates behavior; the next higher one becomes dominant. (Deficit principle)
• The five needs exist in a hierarchy. Higher needs only become important when lower needs are satisfied
• Higher-order needs provide greater motivation.
• Different people may have different priorities.

The theory helps managers to identify which particular needs are relevant for employees and thus to determine appropriate motivators.

Alderfer’s ERG Theory

Is based on Maslows Hierchy of needs; recategorizes Maslows categories of needs into three simpler and broader groups:

• Existence needs – need for material and energy exchange; basic physiological and safety needs
• Relatedness needs – transactions with human environment, process of sharing or mutuality; need for interpersonal relationships and attention; is about equivalent to Maslows social needs and part of the esteem needs
• Growth needs – people make creative or productive efforts for themselves; need for personal growth and self-development; part of Maslows esteem needs and self-fulfillment needs

On contrast to Maslow, here more than one level of needs can be relevant at the same time. There is no hierarchy; people may for instance work to fulfill their personal growth needs, whereas not al relatedness needs are fulfilled.

McClelland’s needs Based mainly on studies of managers.

There are 3 most important needs:

• Achievement – need for competitive success measured against a personal standard of excellence
• Affiliation – need for warm, friendly relationships with others, interpersonal relationships
• Power – need to control and influence others

The hierarchy of these three groups of needs may differ from individual to individual. Hence, there are different motivators depending on a person’s high-priority needs.

Herzbergs two-factor model

There are some factors that result in satisfaction and some factors that just prevent dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg, the opposite of Satisfaction is No Satisfaction and the opposite of Dissatisfaction is No Dissatisfaction.

• Motivators – factors that really motivate people, also called satisfiers, provide intrinsic motivation Examples for Motivators: recognition, growth and career development opportunities, responsibility, autonomy, self-fulfillment
• Hygiene factors – dissatisfiers; their absence would demotivate people, but their presence not necessarily improves motivation; essentially describe the environment, little effect on positive job attitudes Examples for Hygiene factors: salary, work conditions, relationships with superios and peers, company policy

Process cognitive theory

• Emphasis on psychological processes that effect motivation and on basic needs
• Concerned with people’s perceptions and the way they interpret and understand it
• People will be highly motivated if they can control the means to attain their goals

Expectancy theory

Value, instrumentality (belief that if we do one thing it will lead to another), expectancy (probability that action or effort will lead to an outcome)

Strength of expectations may be based on past experiences

Motivation is only likely when a clearly perceived relationship exists between performance and an outcome that is seen as a means of satisfying needs

Porter and Lawler developed this theory into a model suggesting that there are two factors determining the effort people put into their jobs:

• Value of rewards to individuals in so far as they satisfy their needs
• Probability that rewards depend on effort, as perceived by individuals, their expectation about relationships between effort and reward

Two additional variables:

• Ability – individual characteristics and skills
• Role perceptions – what he wants to do or thinks he is required to do, good if they correspond with the viewpoint of the organisation

Goal theory

By Latham and Locke

Motivation and performance are higher when individuals are set specific goals Goals have to be difficult but accepted

Feedback on performance allows the individual to track how well he or she is doing in relation to the goal

Participation in goal setting is important – goals need to be agreed

As long as they are accepted – demanding goals lead to better performance than easy goals

Reactance theory

Individuals are not passive receivers but responders. They seek to reduce uncertainty by seeking control about factors influencing rewards

Management initiatives about motivation will only work if they make sense to the people in terms of their own values and orientation.

There are four important elements to reactance theory: perceived freedom, threat to freedom, reactance, and restoration of freedom. Freedom is not an abstract consideration, but rather a feeling associated with real behaviors, including actions, emotions, and attitudes.

Equity theory

• Perceptions people have about how they are being treated as compared with others
• Involves feelings and perceptions, is always a comparative process
• People will work better if they are treated equitably
• Two forms of equity: Distributive – fairness people feel they are rewarded in accordance with their contribution and in comparison with others Procedural – perceptions of employees about fairness of company procedures
• We hope/expect that the inputs we give into our job equal the outputs we get

Other theories

Behavioral theory (Skinner): behavior is learnt from experience, learning takes place mainly through reinforcement

Social learning theory (Bandura) significance of reinforcement as a determinant of future behavior, importance of internal psychological factors, esp. Expectancies

Attribution theory (Guest) explanation of performance after we have invested considerable effort and motivation in a task; 4 types of explanations: ability, effort, task difficulty, luck; motivation depends on the factor used to explain success or failure

Role Modeling : people can be motivated if they have the chance to model their own behavior on a ‘role model’, i.e. someone who’s working or leadership style serves as an inspiration and a positive example.

http://www.themanager.org

http://www.wikipedia.org

Characteristics of HRM

Workforce Diversity

Advantages of External Recruitment

Maternity Leave Application format for School Teacher

Discuss on Double Entry Bookkeeping

Some Patients in Hospitals may Get Infections from their Own Bacteria

The Brain Changes that Occur After a Traumatic Brain Injury are Like Those Seen in Alzheimer’s Disease

Cell Nucleus

A View of the Interior of the Mercedes-Maybach S650

Latest post.

Annite – Properties and Occurrences

Antipinite – Properties and Occurrences

A Novel Deposition Process Sheds information on Perovskite Hydrides

Animal Brains inspired AI Game changers for Autonomous Robotics

Aleutite – Properties and Occurrences

Dual Electrification

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

Our State of Teams 2024 report is live! Check it out here .

Use motivation theory to inspire your team’s best work

5 frameworks for understanding the psychology behind that elusive get-up-and-go.

Get stories like this in your inbox

5-second summary

• Motivation theories explore the forces that drive people to work towards a particular outcome.
• These frameworks can help leaders who want to foster a productive environment understand the psychology behind human motivation.
• Here, we’re outlining five of the most common motivation theories and explaining how to put those theories into practice.

A huge part of a leader’s job is creating an environment where productivity thrives and teams are inspired to do their best work. But that uniquely human brand of motivation can be quite slippery – hard to understand, inspire, and harness.

An academic foundation on motivational theory can help, but opening that door exposes you to enough theoretical concepts and esoteric language to make your eyes glaze over.

This practical guide to motivation theories cuts through the jargon to help you get a solid grasp on the fundamentals that fuel your team’s peak performance – and how you can actually put these theories into action.

What is motivation theory?

Motivation theory explores the forces that drive people to work towards a particular outcome. Rather than accepting motivation as an elusive human idiosyncrasy, motivation theories offer a research-backed framework for understanding what, specifically , pushes people forward.

Motivation theory doesn’t describe one specific approach – rather, it’s an umbrella category that covers a slew of theories, each with a different take on the best “recipe” for motivation in the workplace.

CONTENT THEORIES VS. PROCESS THEORIES

At a high level, motivation theories can be split into two distinct categories: content theories and process theories . 

• Content theories focus on the things that people need to feel motivated. They look at the factors that encourage and maintain motivated behaviors, like basic needs, rewards, and recognition. 
• Process theories focus on individuals’ thought processes that might impact motivation, such as behavioral patterns and expectations.

5 motivation theories to inspire your team

Celebrate those little wins to keep your team motivated

A quick Google search will reveal dozens of different approaches that promise to unlock relentless ambition on your team. 

It’s not likely that a single motivation theory will immediately ignite human-productivity hyperdrive. But the psychology happening behind the scenes gives unique insight into the components that influence human motivation. Leaders can then build on that foundation to create an environment that’s conducive to better focus and enthusiasm. 

Let’s get into five of the most common and frequently referenced theories.

1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

One of the most well-known motivation theories, the hierarchy of needs was published by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper “ A Theory of Human Motivation .” 

The gist is that Maslow’s hierarchy outlines five tiers of human needs, commonly represented by a pyramid. These five tiers are: 

• Physiological needs: Food, water, shelter, air, sleep, clothing, reproduction
• Safety needs: Personal security, employment, resources, health, property
• Love and belonging: Family, friendship, intimacy, a sense of connection
• Esteem: Status, recognition, self-esteem, respect
• Self-actualization: The ability to reach your full potential

As the term “hierarchy” implies, people tend to seek out their basic needs first (which make up the base of the pyramid). After that, they move to the needs in the next tier until they reach the tip of the pyramid.

In this same paper, however, Maslow clarifies that his hierarchy of needs isn’t quite as sequential as the pyramid framework might lead people to believe. One need doesn’t necessarily have to be fully met before the next one becomes pertinent. These human needs do build on each other, but they’re interdependent and not always consecutive. As Maslow himself said , “No need or drive can be treated as if it were isolated or discrete; every drive is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives.”

The iconic pyramid associated with Maslow’s theory wasn’t actually created by Maslow — and is even considered somewhat misleading, as you don’t need to “complete” each level before moving forward. The pyramid was popularized decades later by a different psychologist who built upon Maslow’s work along with other management theories.

Maslow’s theory was originally focused on humans’ fundamental needs generally, but in the intervening decades, it’s frequently been adapted and applied to workplaces. 

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in practice

The biggest lesson for leaders here is that you need to have the basics in place before anything else. Because Maslow’s tiers build on each other, a promotion won’t do much to motivate your team members if they’re concerned about the safety of their work environment. 

Do your team members feel that they have some level of job security? Are they adequately paid? Do they have safe working conditions? Those are the base requirements you need to meet first. 

The hierarchy of needs can support a more holistic approach to management, so you can confirm basic needs and then evolve a more nuanced idea of what people need to thrive. Do they have solid connections with you and their colleagues? Do they receive adequate recognition? Do they have some autonomy in their position?

2. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (AKA dual-factor or two-factor theory)

Frederick Herzberg, a behavioral scientist, created the motivation-hygiene theory in 1959. The theory is a result of his interviews with a group of employees, in which he asked them two simple questions: 

• Think of a time you felt good about your job. What made you feel that way?
• Think of a time you felt bad about your job. What made you feel that way? 

Through those interviews, he realized that there are two mutually exclusive factors that influence employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction – hence, this theory is often called the “two-factor” or “dual-factor” theory. He named the factors:

• Hygiene encompasses basic things like working conditions, compensation, supervision, and company policies. When these nuts and bolts are in place, employee satisfaction remains steady – it’s the absence of them that moves the needle. When they’re missing, employee satisfaction decreases. 
• Motivators are things like perks, recognition, and opportunity for advancement. These are the factors that, when present, increase employee motivation, productivity, and commitment.

Here’s the easiest way to think of this theory: Hygiene issues will cause dissatisfaction with your employees (and that dissatisfaction will hinder their motivation). Motivators improve satisfaction and motivation – but only when healthy hygiene is in place.

Herzberg’s theory in practice

Herzberg’s two-factor theory is often described as complementary to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as both place an emphasis on ensuring an employee’s basic needs – like security, safety, and pay – are being satisfied. 

Maslow’s theory is more descriptive, and gives you a comprehensive understanding of the human needs that drive motivation. Herzberg’s theory focuses specifically on prescriptive takeaways for the workplace, giving managers a simple, two-part framework they can use to confirm the presence of hygiene factors before trying to leverage any motivators. 

3. Vroom’s expectancy theory

The premise behind Vroom’s expectancy theory , established by psychologist Victor Vroom in 1964, is pretty straightforward:  We make conscious choices about our behavior, and those choices are motivated by our expectations about what will happen. In other words, we make decisions to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. 

The nuance lies in Vroom’s finding that people value outcomes differently. To unpack that added layer of complexity, Vroom dug a little deeper to explain two psychological processes that influence motivation: 

• Instrumentality: People believe that a reward will correlate to their performance.
• Expectancy: People believe that as they increase their effort, the reward increases too.

Vroom’s theory indicates that people need to be able to anticipate the outcome of their actions and behaviors. And, if you want to boost motivation, they need to care about those outcomes. 

Vroom’s expectancy theory in practice

The one thing your career development plan is missing

Remember that everyone on your team might not be motivated by the same rewards, so your first step is to understand what each of your team members value so you can create opportunities for corresponding outcomes. From there, you can set clear expectations that connect performance to their desired rewards. (This is also what a career development plan does, by the way).

Of course, not every single expectation has a reward directly attached to it. Employees are required to fulfill the responsibilities of their jobs simply because…it’s their job.

Vroom’s theory is all about seeking pleasure and minimizing pain. So, in situations where a reward isn’t relevant, make sure employees are in the loop on what the consequences are if expectations aren’t met.

4. Reinforcement theory

The reinforcement theory is a piece of a broader concept called operant conditioning , which is often credited to psychologist, B.F. Skinner. However, Skinner’s work builds on the law of effect , established by Edward Thorndike in 1898. 

Despite its convoluted origins, this is another theory with a simple premise: Consequences shape our behaviors. We’ll repeat behaviors that are reinforced, whether that means they lead to a positive outcome (positive reinforcement) or they end or remove a negative outcome (negative reinforcement).

This theory doesn’t focus on our internal drivers – it’s all about cause and effect. If we do something and like the result, we do it again. 

Reinforcement theory in practice

Because this theory is so strongly correlated to human nature (hey, you probably weren’t eager to touch a hot stove again after it burned you once, right?), it’s one of the most intuitive to apply on your team.

When an employee does something desirable, reward that behavior – whether in the form of well-deserved recognition,  taking a dreaded task off their plate, or offering a more tangible perk like an extra day off.

5. Self-determination theory

5 questions about motivation with Daniel Pink

The self-determination theory , introduced by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci in their 1985 book , focuses on finding motivation within yourself.

Ryan and Deci argue that motivation shouldn’t necessarily be derived from dangling carrots or waving sticks at people. That type is what they refer to as controlled motivation , in which people choose their behaviors based on external results. 

Far more powerful than that, the psychologists argued, is autonomous motivation (also known as intrinsic motivation). Under these circumstances, people feel motivated when their choices are aligned with their internal goals and beliefs. Their behaviors aren’t directed by external approval, rewards, and punishments. Instead, their behaviors are self-determined. 

Autonomous motivation doesn’t happen on its own. To get there, people need to have three psychological needs met:

• Autonomy: The feeling that they have a choice and some ownership over their behavior
• Competence: The feeling that they are knowledgeable and capable 
• Relatedness: The feeling that they are connected to others

When those three boxes are checked, people are better equipped to pull motivation from within, rather than relying on the external factors that are central to so many other motivation theories. 

Self-determination theory in practice

You might guess that meeting those three core psychological needs is crucial for this theory – and there’s no need to overcomplicate it.

Here are a few ideas:

• Autonomy: Give employees flexible schedules and the ability to decide for themselves when and where they do their best work.
• Competence: Offer additional trainings and learning opportunities to continue to refine their skills.
• Relatedness: Provide outlets – whether it’s designated Slack channels or team outings – for team members to bond and get to know each other on a more personal level.

That’s not an exhaustive list. You have room to get creative and find other ways to boost your employees’ sense of ownership, proficiency, and connection. 

Motivation doesn’t have to be a mystery

Motivation can feel fickle – like a fleeting phenomenon that magically happens when conditions are just right .

But, as your team’s leader, it’s your responsibility to conjure that “just right” environment where people can perform their best work. 

You don’t need to be a mind reader to make that happen. Motivation theory can help you identify methods among the madness and create an environment where a high-level motivation is a constant – not a fluke.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Motivation: The Driving Force Behind Our Actions

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Emily Roberts 

• Improvement

The term motivation describes why a person does something. It is the driving force behind human actions. Motivation is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors.

For instance, motivation is what helps you lose extra weight, or pushes you to get that promotion at work. In short, motivation causes you to act in a way that gets you closer to your goals. Motivation includes the biological , emotional , social , and cognitive forces that activate human behavior.

Motivation also involves factors that direct and maintain goal-directed actions. Although, such motives are rarely directly observable. As a result, we must often infer the reasons why people do the things that they do based on observable behaviors.

Learn the types of motivation that exist and how we use them in our everyday lives. And if it feels like you've lost your motivation, do not worry. There are many ways to develop or improve your self-motivation levels.

Press Play for Advice on Motivation

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares an exercise you can use to help you perform your best. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

What Are the Types of Motivation?

The two main types of motivation are frequently described as being either extrinsic or intrinsic.

• Extrinsic motivation arises from outside of the individual and often involves external rewards such as trophies, money, social recognition, or praise.
• Intrinsic motivation is internal and arises from within the individual, such as doing a complicated crossword puzzle purely for the gratification of solving a problem.

A Third Type of Motivation?

Some research suggests that there is a third type of motivation: family motivation. An example of this type is going to work when you are not motivated to do so internally (no intrinsic motivation), but because it is a means to support your family financially.

Why Motivation Is Important

Motivation serves as a guiding force for all human behavior. So, understanding how motivation works and the factors that may impact it can be important for several reasons.

Understanding motivation can:

• Increase your efficiency as you work toward your goals
• Drive you to take action
• Encourage you to engage in health-oriented behaviors
• Help you avoid unhealthy or maladaptive behaviors, such as risk-taking and addiction
• Help you feel more in control of your life
• Improve your overall well-being and happiness

Click Play to Learn More About Motivation

This video has been medically reviewed by John C. Umhau, MD, MPH, CPE .

What Are the 3 Components of Motivation?

If you've ever had a goal (like wanting to lose 20 pounds or run a marathon), you probably already know that simply having the desire to accomplish these things is not enough. You must also be able to persist through obstacles and have the endurance to keep going in spite of difficulties faced.

These different elements or components are needed to get and stay motivated. Researchers have identified three major components of motivation: activation, persistence, and intensity.

• Activation is the decision to initiate a behavior. An example of activation would be enrolling in psychology courses in order to earn your degree.
• Persistence is the continued effort toward a goal even though obstacles may exist. An example of persistence would be showing up for your psychology class even though you are tired from staying up late the night before.
• Intensity is the concentration and vigor that goes into pursuing a goal. For example, one student might coast by without much effort (minimal intensity) while another student studies regularly, participates in classroom discussions, and takes advantage of research opportunities outside of class (greater intensity).

The degree of each of these components of motivation can impact whether you achieve your goal. Strong activation, for example, means that you are more likely to start pursuing a goal. Persistence and intensity will determine if you keep working toward that goal and how much effort you devote to reaching it.

Tips for Improving Your Motivation

All people experience fluctuations in their motivation and willpower . Sometimes you feel fired up and highly driven to reach your goals. Other times, you might feel listless or unsure of what you want or how to achieve it.

If you're feeling low on motivation, there are steps you can take to help increase your drive. Some things you can do to develop or improve your motivation include:

• Adjust your goals to focus on things that really matter to you. Focusing on things that are highly important to you will help push you through your challenges more than goals based on things that are low in importance.
• If you're tackling something that feels too big or too overwhelming, break it up into smaller, more manageable steps. Then, set your sights on achieving only the first step. Instead of trying to lose 50 pounds, for example, break this goal down into five-pound increments.
• Improve your confidence . Research suggests that there is a connection between confidence and motivation. So, gaining more confidence in yourself and your skills can impact your ability to achieve your goals.
• Remind yourself about what you've achieved in the past and where your strengths lie. This helps keep self-doubts from limiting your motivation.
• If there are things you feel insecure about, try working on making improvements in those areas so you feel more skilled and capable.

Causes of Low Motivation

There are a few things you should watch for that might hurt or inhibit your motivation levels. These include:

• All-or-nothing thinking : If you think that you must be absolutely perfect when trying to reach your goal or there is no point in trying, one small slip-up or relapse can zap your motivation to keep pushing forward.
• Believing in quick fixes : It's easy to feel unmotivated if you can't reach your goal immediately but reaching goals often takes time.
• Thinking that one size fits all : Just because an approach or method worked for someone else does not mean that it will work for you. If you don't feel motivated to pursue your goals, look for other things that will work better for you.

Motivation and Mental Health

Sometimes a persistent lack of motivation is tied to a mental health condition such as depression . Talk to your doctor if you are feeling symptoms of apathy and low mood that last longer than two weeks.

Theories of Motivation

Throughout history, psychologists have proposed different theories to explain what motivates human behavior. The following are some of the major theories of motivation.

The instinct theory of motivation suggests that behaviors are motivated by instincts, which are fixed and inborn patterns of behavior. Psychologists such as William James, Sigmund Freud , and William McDougal have proposed several basic human drives that motivate behavior. They include biological instincts that are important for an organism's survival—such as fear, cleanliness, and love.

Drives and Needs

Many behaviors such as eating, drinking, and sleeping are motivated by biology. We have a biological need for food, water, and sleep. Therefore, we are motivated to eat, drink, and sleep. The drive reduction theory of motivation suggests that people have these basic biological drives, and our behaviors are motivated by the need to fulfill these drives.

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs is another motivation theory based on a desire to fulfill basic physiological needs. Once those needs are met, it expands to our other needs, such as those related to safety and security, social needs, self-esteem, and self-actualization.

Arousal Levels

The arousal theory of motivation suggests that people are motivated to engage in behaviors that help them maintain their optimal level of arousal. A person with low arousal needs might pursue relaxing activities such as reading a book, while those with high arousal needs might be motivated to engage in exciting, thrill-seeking behaviors such as motorcycle racing.

The Bottom Line

Psychologists have proposed many different theories of motivation . The reality is that there are numerous different forces that guide and direct our motivations.

Understanding motivation is important in many areas of life beyond psychology, from parenting to the workplace. You may want to set the best goals and establish the right reward systems to motivate others as well as to  increase your own motivation .

Knowledge of motivating factors (and how to manipulate them) is used in marketing and other aspects of industrial psychology. It's an area where there are many myths, and everyone can benefit from knowing what works with motivation and what doesn't.

Nevid JS.  Psychology: Concepts and Applications .

Tranquillo J, Stecker M.  Using intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in continuing professional education .  Surg Neurol Int.  2016;7(Suppl 7):S197-9. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.179231

Menges JI, Tussing DV, Wihler A, Grant AM. When job performance is all relative: How family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic motivation . Acad Managem J . 2016;60(2):695-719. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0898

Hockenbury DH, Hockenbury SE. Discovering Psychology .

Zhou Y, Siu AF. Motivational intensity modulates the effects of positive emotions on set shifting after controlling physiological arousal . Scand J Psychol . 2015;56(6):613-21. doi:10.1111/sjop.12247

Mystkowska-Wiertelak A, Pawlak M. Designing a tool for measuring the interrelationships between L2 WTC, confidence, beliefs, motivation, and context . Classroom-Oriented Research . 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30373-4_2

Myers DG.  Exploring Social Psychology .

Siegling AB, Petrides KV. Drive: Theory and construct validation .  PLoS One . 2016;11(7):e0157295. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157295

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Resources: Discussions and Assignments

Assignment: motivation and emotion.

STEP 1: Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.15: Assignment- Motivation and Emotion

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 59817

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Theories of Emotion

STEP 1 : Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

Licenses and Attributions

CC licensed content, Original

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Resources: Course Assignments

Assignment: Motivation and Emotion

Theories of emotion.

STEP 1 : Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

CC licensed content, Original

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The effect of micro gamified online homework on gameful experience, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and cognitive load

• Published: 13 June 2024

Cite this article

• Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-5870 1 ,
• Ronghuai Huang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4651-5248 1 ,
• Paula Toledo Palomino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9730-2253 2 &
• Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-0734 3  

18 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Gamifying online homework activities and learning assignments is an effective approach to facilitate students' engagement and enjoyment. While incorporating game elements to gamify homework and learning assignments promoted positive psychological and learning outcomes, the mere use of these elements brings several flaws associated with the gameful design that constrains the perceived gameful experience and increases the cognitive load of students during homework achievement. This research demonstrates the micro design as an innovative approach to gamify homework assignments and investigates its effects on perceived gameful experience, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and cognitive load. Forty-three primary school students were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., experimental and control groups. The experimental group with the micro gameful design of homework activities and the control group with conventional gameful design. The results provided empirical evidence on the impact of gamifying online homework while there are no significant differences between the groups on gameful experience, motivation, and engagement. The micro design approach is effective for reducing the cognitive load of students when accomplishing homework tasks. The current data highlight the importance of enhancing the gameful design approaches and patterns when gamifying learning assignments and developing motivational cognitive affordances that promote behaviour change and task completion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Agrawal, R., Imieliński, T., & Swami, A. (1993). Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. ACM SIGMOD Record . https://doi.org/10.1145/170036.170072

Albertazzi, D., Ferreira, M. G. G., & Forcellini, F. A. (2019). A Wide View on Gamification. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24 (2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9374-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Armier, D. D., Shepherd, C. E., & Skrabut, S. (2016). Using Game Elements to Increase Student Engagement in Course Assignments. College Teaching, 64 (2), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1094439

Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30 , 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322

Bonham, S., Beichner, R., & Deardorff, D. (2001). Online homework: Does it make a difference? The Physics Teacher, 39 (5), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1375468

Chang, C.-C., Liang, C., Chou, P.-N., & Lin, G.-Y. (2017). Is game-based learning better in flow experience and various types of cognitive load than non-game-based learning? Perspective from multimedia and media richness. Computers in Human Behavior, 71 , 218–227.

Chee, C. M., & Ten Wong, D. H. (2017). Affluent Gaming Experience Could Fail Gamification in Education: A Review. IETE Technical Review, 34 (6), 593–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.2017.1315965

Chen, Y., Zhang, L., & Mao, C. (2022a). Investigating Chinese College Students’ Cognitive Load in a Gamified Foreign Language Class: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Big Data and Education , 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524383.3524447

Chen, Y., Zhang, L., & Yin, H. (2022b). A Longitudinal Study on Students’ Foreign Language Anxiety and Cognitive Load in Gamified Classes of Higher Education. Sustainability, 14 (17), 10905.

Cheng, K. K., Thacker, B. A., Cardenas, R. L., & Crouch, C. (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 72 (11), 1447–1453.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & De Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58 , 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021

Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., & Noroozi, O. (2019). Using gamification to support learning English as a second language: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298

Dehghanzadeh, H., Farrokhnia, M., Dehghanzadeh, H., Taghipour, K., & Noroozi, O. (2024). Using gamification to support learning in K-12 education: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55 (1), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.1333

Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human-Computer Interaction, 30 (3–4), 294–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.993471

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments , 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 14 (9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Angelova, G., & Agre, G. (2014). From gamification to gameful design and gameful experience in learning. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 14 (4), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/cait-2014-0007

Douligeris, C., Seralidou, E., & Gkotsiopoulos, P. (2018). Let’s learn with Kahoot! 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , 677–685. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8363296

Eppmann, R., Bekk, M., & Klein, K. (2018). Gameful Experience in Gamification: Construction and Validation of a Gameful Experience Scale [GAMEX]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43 , 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.03.002

Fatmawati, O. A. (2021). Does kahoot challenge mode motivate students’ better than google form in doing online homework? LinguA-LiterA: Journal of English Language Teaching Learning and Literature , 4 (2), 15–27.

Freasier, B., Collins, G., & Newitt, P. (2003). A Web-Based Interactive Homework Quiz and Tutorial Package To Motivate Undergraduate Chemistry Students and Improve Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 80 (11), 1344. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p1344

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (4), 490–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745469

Garone, P., & Nesteriuk, S. (2019). Gamification and Learning: A Comparative Study of Design Frameworks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 11582 LNCS , 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22219-2_35

Ghai, A., & Tandon, U. (2023). Integrating gamification and instructional design to enhance usability of online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (2), 2187–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11202-5

Goehle, G. (2013). Gamification and Web-based Homework. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies , 23 (3), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2012.736451

Goehle, G., & Wagaman, J. (2015). The Impact of Gamification in Web Based Homework. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies , 26 (6), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1122690

Gribbons, B., & Herman, J. (1996). True and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation , 5 . https://doi.org/10.7275/fs4z-nb61

Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos1321

Holman, C., Aguilar, S., & Fishman, B. (2013). GradeCraft: What can we learn from a game-inspired learning management system? ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. (pp. 60–264).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460350

Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Using gamification to design courses. Educational Technology & Society, 24 (1), 44–63.

Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In  Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4 (1), 1–5.

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification—A service marketing perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference , 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). (2021). https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory . Accessed Jan 2021.

Kim, J. T., & Lee, W. H. (2015). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74 (19), 8483–8493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1612-8

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45 , 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013

Korkealehto, K., & Siklander, P. (2018). Enhancing engagement, enjoyment and learning experiences through gamification on an English course for health care students. Seminar.net , 14 (1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2579

Kulhanek, A., Butler, B., & Bodnar, C. A. (2019). Motivating first-year engineering students through gamified homework. Educational Action Research , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1635511

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning: Linking Serious Games and Gamification of Learning. Simulation and Gaming, 45 (6), 752–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563660

Landers, R. N., Tondello, G. F., Kappen, D. L., Collmus, A. B., Mekler, E. D., & Nacke, L. E. (2019). Defining gameful experience as a psychological state caused by gameplay: Replacing the term ‘Gamefulness’ with three distinct constructs. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 127 , 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.08.003

Leclercq, T., Poncin, I., & Hammedi, W. (2020). Opening the black box of gameful experience: Implications for gamification process design. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 52 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.07.007

Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30 , 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001

Liu, Y.-C., Wang, W.-T., & Huang, W.-H. (2023). The effects of game quality and cognitive loads on students’ learning performance in mobile game-based learning contexts: The case of system analysis education. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11856-9

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Majuri, J., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference , GamiFIN 2018, (pp. 11–19).

Manimaran, J., & Velmurugan, T. (2015). Analysing the quality of association rules by computing an interestingness measures. Indian Journal of Science and Technology . https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i15/76693

Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M. A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., & Alias, A. (2021). Between level up and game over: A systematic literature review of gamification in education. Sustainability, 13 (4), 2247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247

Martí-Parreño, J., Seguí-Mas, D., & Seguí-Mas, E. (2016). Teachers’ Attitude towards and Actual Use of Gamification. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228 , 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.104

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013). Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series , 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583017

Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71 , 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048

Metwally, A. H. S., Nacke, L. E., Chang, M., Wang, Y., & Yousef, A. M. F. (2021). Revealing the hotspots of educational gamification: An umbrella review. International Journal of Educational Research , 109 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101832

Metwally, A. H. S., Yousef, A. M. F., & Yining, W. (2020a). Learning Analytics and Perceived Experience of Gamifying Homework Assignments. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) , 1 , (pp. 673–683). https://doi.org/10.5220/0009818606730683

Metwally, A. H. S., Yousef, A. M. F., & Yining, W. (2020b). Micro Design Approach for Gamifying Students’ Assignments. In 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , (pp. 349–351). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00112

Metwally, A. H. S., Yousef, A. M. F., & Yining, W. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamifying homework on students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention and intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International GamiFIN Conference , (pp. 47–57). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2359/paper5.pdf

Mora, A., Riera, D., Gonzalez, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015a). A Literature Review of Gamification Design Frameworks. 2015 7th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games) , September , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2015.7295760

Mora, A., Zaharias, P., González, C. S. G., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015b). FRAGGLE: A FRamework for AGile gamification of learning experiences. International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance , 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1_57

Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: A systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29 (3), 516–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9150-4

Nadi-Ravandi, S., & Batooli, Z. (2022). Gamification in education: A scientometric, content and co-occurrence analysis of systematic review and meta-analysis articles. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (7), 10207–10238.

Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Oliveira, W., Cristea, A. I., & Isotani, S. (2019b). Narrative for Gamification in Education: Why Should you Care? In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , (pp. 97–99). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00035

Putri Septiani, A., & Rosmansyah, Y. (2021). Features, frameworks, and benefits of gamified microlearning: A systematic literature review. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series , 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/3468978.3469000

Putz, L. M., Hofbauer, F., & Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Can gamification help to improve education? Findings from a longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 110 , 106392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106392

Qiao, S., Yeung, S. S. sze, Zainuddin, Z., Ng, D. T. K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022). Examining the effects of mixed and non-digital gamification on students’ learning performance, cognitive engagement and course satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology , February , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13249

Richards-Babb, M., Drelick, J., Henry, Z., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2011). Online Homework, Help or Hindrance? What Students Think and How They Perform. Research and Teaching .

Ronsivalle, G. B., & Metus, V. (2005). Motivation and micro-design models and techniques. In Proceedings of the TACONET Conference, Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments , pp. 26–42.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2), 648–658.

Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (2), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007

Snelson, C., & Elison-Bowers, P. (2007). Micro-level design for multimedia-enhanced online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 3 (4), 383–394.

Sun, J. C., & Hsieh, P. (2018). Application of a Gamified Interactive Response System to Enhance the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Student Engagement, and Attention of English Learners. Educational Technology & Society, 21 (3), 104–116.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. In B. H. R. Jose P. Mestre (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory . https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 , 251–296.

Tondello, G. F., Premsukh, H., & Nacke, L. E. (2018). A theory of gamification principles through goal-setting theory. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) , Hawaii, USA (pp. 1118–1127). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50027

Turan, Z., Avinc, Z., Kara, K., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11 (7), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i07.5455

Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 , 147–177.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business . Wharton Digital Press.

Werbach, K. (2014). (Re) defining gamification: A process approach. In  Persuasive Technology: 9th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2014, Padua, Italy, May 21–23, 2014. Proceedings 9  (pp. 266–272). Springer International Publishing.

Yousef, A. M. F., Huang, R., Tlili, A., Garcia, M. B., Mahmoud, A. G., & Metwally, A. H. S. (2023). Small Bites, Big Impact: The Power of Nanolearning. In International Conference on Smart Learning Environments (pp. 108–116). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Yu, Q., Yu, K., & Li, B. (2024). Can gamification enhance online learning? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29 , 4055–4083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11977-1

Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020a). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review , 30 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326

Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020b). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145 , 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally & Ronghuai Huang

Federal University of Alagoas, Alagoas, Brazil

Paula Toledo Palomino

Faculty of Specific Education, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Hosny Saleh Metwally .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Tables 3 , 4 , 5 and 6

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Metwally, A.H.S., Huang, R., Palomino, P.T. et al. The effect of micro gamified online homework on gameful experience, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and cognitive load. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12750-8

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 13 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12750-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gamifying homework
• Micro design
• Gameful design
• Gameful experience
• Cognitive load
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research