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).

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

There are many theories developed for the purpose of application to the organizational setting and motivation of employees.

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.

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
• Email 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).

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

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. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143122231/
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Balantine Books. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345472322/
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
• Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6 (6), 409-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804709114/
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54 (7), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.531
• Gordon, R. M. (1987). The structure of emotions . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521395682/
• 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. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315781594-3/interpersonal-intragroup-anxiety-sports-yuri-hanin
• 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. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557985650/
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610369469
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369470
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0139131388/
• 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
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369473
• Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63
• Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691611400234
• 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02061-006
• Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84 (3), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076720
• 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2006-08705-013
• Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118517792/
• 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
• 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1999-10261-009
• Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 549-570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.549
• Thayer, R. L. (1989). The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal, 8 (2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.8.2.101
• Vroom, V. H. (1964).  Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0787900303/
• 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.

It’s so wonderful, I’m going to make a journal about the teacher’s motivation. Thank you very much. Great summary

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

How to Encourage Clients to Embrace Change

Many of us struggle with change, especially when it’s imposed upon us rather than chosen. Yet despite its inevitability, without it, there would be no [...]

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 [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

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

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories

David a cook.

1 Mayo Clinic Online Learning, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

2 Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

3 Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

Anthony R Artino, Jr

4 Division of Health Professions Education, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Associated Data

Table S2. A research agenda for motivation in education.

To succinctly summarise five contemporary theories about motivation to learn, articulate key intersections and distinctions among these theories, and identify important considerations for future research.

Motivation has been defined as the process whereby goal‐directed activities are initiated and sustained. In expectancy‐value theory, motivation is a function of the expectation of success and perceived value. Attribution theory focuses on the causal attributions learners create to explain the results of an activity, and classifies these in terms of their locus, stability and controllability. Social‐ cognitive theory emphasises self‐efficacy as the primary driver of motivated action, and also identifies cues that influence future self‐efficacy and support self‐regulated learning. Goal orientation theory suggests that learners tend to engage in tasks with concerns about mastering the content (mastery goal, arising from a ‘growth’ mindset regarding intelligence and learning) or about doing better than others or avoiding failure (performance goals, arising from a ‘fixed’ mindset). Finally, self‐determination theory proposes that optimal performance results from actions motivated by intrinsic interests or by extrinsic values that have become integrated and internalised. Satisfying basic psychosocial needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness promotes such motivation. Looking across all five theories, we note recurrent themes of competence, value, attributions, and interactions between individuals and the learning context.

Conclusions

To avoid conceptual confusion, and perhaps more importantly to maximise the theory‐building potential of their work, researchers must be careful (and precise) in how they define, operationalise and measure different motivational constructs. We suggest that motivation research continue to build theory and extend it to health professions domains, identify key outcomes and outcome measures, and test practical educational applications of the principles thus derived.

Short abstract

Discuss ideas arising from the article at www.mededuc.com discuss.

Introduction

The concept of motivation pervades our professional and personal lives. We colloquially speak of motivation to get out of bed, write a paper, do household chores, answer the phone, and of course, to learn. We sense that motivation to learn exists (as opposed to being a euphemism, intellectual invention or epiphenomenon) and is important as both a dependent variable (higher or lower levels of motivation resulting from specific educational activities) 1 and an independent variable 2 (motivational manipulations to enhance learning) 3 , 4 , 5 . But what do we really mean by motivation to learn, and how can a better understanding of motivation influence what we do as educators?

Countless theories have been proposed to explain human motivation. 6 Although each sheds light on specific aspects of motivation, each of necessity neglects others. The diversity of theories creates confusion because most have areas of conceptual overlap and disagreement, and many employ an idiosyncratic vocabulary using different words for the same concept and the same word for different concepts. 7 Although this can be disconcerting, each contemporary theory nonetheless contributes a unique perspective with potentially novel insights and distinct implications for practice and future research.

Previous reviews of motivation in health professions education have focused on practical implications or broad overviews without extended theoretical elaborations, 2 , 3 or focused on only one theory. 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 A review that explains and contrasts multiple theories will encourage a more nuanced understanding of motivational principles, and will facilitate additional research to advance the science in this field.

The purpose of this cross‐cutting edge article is to succinctly summarise five contemporary theories about motivation to learn, clearly articulate key intersections and distinctions among theories, and identify important considerations for future research. We selected these theories based on their presence in recent reviews; 6 , 17 , 18 , 19 we sought but did not find other broadly‐recognised modern theories. Our goal is not to present a comprehensive examination of recent evidence, but to make the theoretical foundations of motivation accessible to medical educators. We acknowledge that for each theory we can scarcely scratch the surface, and thus suggest further reading for those who wish to study in greater depth (see Table  1 ).

Summary of contemporary motivation theories

AT = attribution theory; EVT = expectancy‐value theory; GOT = goal orientation theory; SCT = social‐cognitive theory; SDT = self‐determination theory.

For this review we define motivation as ‘the process whereby goal‐directed activities are instigated and sustained’, 6 (pg 5) Although others exist, this definition highlights four key concepts: motivation is a process; it is focused on a goal; and it deals with both the initiation and the continuation of activity directed at achieving that goal.

Common themes

We have identified four recurrent themes across the five theories discussed below, and believe that an up‐front overview will help readers recognise commonalities and differences across theories. Table  1 offers a concise summary of each theory and Table  2 attempts to clarify overlapping terminology.

Similar concepts and terminology across several contemporary theories: clarifying confusable terminology

All contemporary theories include a concept related to beliefs about competence . Variously labelled expectancy of success, self‐efficacy, confidence and self‐concept, these beliefs all address, in essence, the question ‘Can I do it?’. However, there are important distinctions both between and within theories, as elaborated below. For example, self‐concept and earlier conceptions of expectancy of success (expectancy‐value theory) viewed these beliefs in general terms (e.g. spanning a broad domain such as ‘athletics’ or ‘clinical medicine’, or generalising across time or situations). By contrast, self‐efficacy (social‐cognitive theory) and later conceptions of expectancy of success viewed these beliefs in much more task‐ and situation‐specific terms (e.g. ‘Can I grade the severity of aortic stenosis?’).

Most theories also include a concept regarding the value or anticipated result of the learning task. These beliefs include specific terms such as task value, outcome expectation and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. All address the question, ‘Do I want do to it?’ or ‘What will happen (good or bad) if I do?’. Again, there are important distinctions between theories. For example, task value (expectancy‐value theory) focuses on the perceived importance or usefulness of successful task completion, whereas outcome expectation (social‐cognitive theory) focuses on the probable (expected) result of an action if full effort is invested.

Most theories discuss the importance of attributions in shaping beliefs and future actions. Learners frequently establish conscious or unconscious links between an observed event or outcome and the personal factors that led to this outcome (i.e. the underlying cause). To the degree that learners perceive that the underlying cause is changeable and within their control, they will be more likely to persist in the face of initial failure.

Finally, all contemporary theories of motivation are ‘cognitive’ in the sense that, by contrast with some earlier theories, they presume the involvement of mental processes that are not directly observable. Moreover, recent theories increasingly recognise that motivation cannot be fully explained as an individual phenomenon, but rather that it often involves interactions between an individual and a larger social context. Bandura labelled his theory a ‘social‐cognitive theory’ of learning, but all of the theories discussed below include both social and cognitive elements .

Again, each theory operationalises each concept slightly differently and we encourage readers to pay attention to such distinctions (using Table  2 for support) for the remainder of this text.

Expectancy‐value theories

In a nutshell, expectancy‐value theories 20 , 21 identify two key independent factors that influence behaviour (Fig.  1 ): the degree to which individuals believe they will be successful if they try (expectancy of success), and the degree to which they perceive that there is a personal importance, value or intrinsic interest in doing the task (task value).

Expectancy‐value theory. This is a simplified version of Wigfield and Eccles's theory; it does not contain all of the details of their theory and blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. The key constructs of task value and expectancy of success are influenced by motivational beliefs, which are in turn determined by social influences that are perceived and interpreted by learner cognitive processes

Expectancy of success is more than a perception of general competence; it represents a future‐oriented conviction that one can accomplish the anticipated task. If I do not believe I will be successful in accomplishing a task, I am unlikely to begin. Such beliefs can be both general (e.g. global self‐concept) and specific (judgements of ability to learn a specific skill or topic). According to Wigfield and Eccles, 20 expectancy of success is shaped by motivational beliefs that fall into three broad categories: goals, self‐concept and task difficulty. Goals refer to specific short‐ and long‐term learning objectives. Self‐concept refers to general impressions about one's capacity in this task domain (e.g. academic ability, athletic prowess, social skills or good looks). Task difficulty refers to the perceived (not necessarily actual) difficulty of the specific task. Empirical studies show that expectancy beliefs predict both engagement in learning activities and learning achievement (e.g. test scores and grades). In fact, expectancy of success may be a stronger predictor of success than past performance. 20

According to expectancy‐value theorists, however, motivation requires more than just a conviction that I can succeed; I must also expect some immediate or future personal gain or value. Like expectancy of success, task value or valence is perceived (not necessarily actual) and at times idiosyncratic. At least four factors have been conceived as contributing to task value: a given topic might be particularly interesting or enjoyable to the learner (interest or intrinsic value ); learning about a topic or mastering a skill might be perceived as useful for practical reasons, or a necessary step toward a future goal (utility or extrinsic value ); successfully learning a skill might hold personal importance in its own right or as an affirmation of the learner's self‐concept (importance or attainment value ); and focusing time and energy on one task means that other tasks are neglected (opportunity costs ). Other costs and potential negative consequences include anxiety, effort and the possibility of failure. For example, a postgraduate physician might spend extra time learning cardiac auscultation simply because he finds it fascinating, or because he believes it will help him provide better care for patients, or because he perceives this as a fundamental part of his persona as a physician. Alternatively, he might spend less time learning this skill in order to spend more time mastering surgical skills, or because he simply doesn't feel it is worth the effort. Although some evidence suggests that these four factors (interest, utility, importance and cost) are distinguishable from one another in measurement, 20 it is not yet known whether learners make these distinctions in practice. Task value is, in theory, primarily shaped by one motivational belief: affective memories (reactions and emotions associated with prior experiences). Favourable experiences enhance perceived value; unfavourable experiences diminish it.

The motivational beliefs that determine expectancy of success (goals, self‐concept and task difficulty) and task value (affective memories) are in turn shaped by life events, social influences (parents, teacher or peer pressure, professional values, etc.) and the environment. These shaping forces are interpreted through the learner's personal perspectives and perceptions (i.e. cognitive processes). It is perception, and not necessarily reality, that governs motivational beliefs.

Empirical studies (nearly all of them outside of medical education) show that both expectancy of success and value are associated with learning outcomes, including choice of topics to study, degree of involvement in learning (engagement and persistence) and achievement (performance). Task value seems most strongly associated with choice, whereas expectancy of success seems most strongly associated with engagement, depth of processing and learning achievement. 20 In other words, in choosing whether to learn something the task value matters most; once that choice has been made, expectancy of success is most strongly associated with actual success.

Attribution theory

Attribution theory (Fig.  2 ) explains why people react variably to a given experience, suggesting that different responses arise from differences in the perceived cause of the initial outcome. Success or failure in mastering a new skill, for example, might be attributed to personal effort, innate ability, other people (e.g. the teacher) or luck. These attributions are often subconscious, but strongly influence future activities. Failure attributed to lack of ability might discourage future effort, whereas failure attributed to poor teaching or bad luck might suggest the need to try again, especially if the teacher or luck is expected to change. Attributions directly influence expectancy of future success, and indirectly influence perceived value as mediated by the learner's emotional response to success or failure.

Attribution theory. This is a simplified version of Weiner's theory; it does not contain all of the details of his theory and blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. The process begins with an event; if the outcome is expected or positive, it will often directly elicit emotions (happiness or frustration) without any further action. However, outcomes that are unexpected, negative or perceived as important will often awaken the inquisitive ‘naïve scientist’ who seeks to identify a causal explanation. The individual will interpret the outcome in light of personal and environmental conditions to ‘hypothesise’ a perceived cause, which can be organised along three dimensions: locus, stability and controllability. Stability influences perceived expectancy of success. Locus, controllability and stability collectively influence emotional responses (which reflect the subjective value) and these in turn drive future behaviours

Attribution theory postulates that humans have a tacit goal of understanding and mastering themselves and their environment, and act as ‘naïve scientists’ to establish cause‐effect relationships for events in their lives. The process of attribution starts with an event, such as receiving a grade or learning a skill. If the result is expected and positive, the learner is content and the naïve scientist is not aroused (i.e. there is nothing to investigate). Conversely, if the result is negative, unexpected or particularly important, the scientist begins to search (often subconsciously) for an explanation, taking into account personal and environmental factors to come up with an hypothesis (i.e. an attribution: ability, effort, luck, health, mood, etc.). However, attributions do not directly motivate behaviour. Rather, they are interpreted or reframed into psychologically meaningful (actionable) responses. Empirical research suggests that such interpretations occur along three distinct conceptual dimensions: locus (internal to the learner or external), stability (likely to change or fixed) and controllability (within or outside the learner's control). For example, poor instructional quality (external locus) might be stable (the only teacher for this topic) or unstable (several other teachers available), and controllable (selected by the learner) or uncontrollable (assigned by others), depending on the learner's perception of the situation. Bad luck is typically interpreted as external, unstable and uncontrollable; personal effort is internal, changeable and controllable; and innate skill is internal, largely fixed and uncontrollable.

Weiner linked attributions with motivation through the constructs of expectancy of success and task value. 22 Expectancy of success is directly influenced by perceived causes, primarily through the stability dimension: ‘If conditions (the presence or absence of causes) are expected to remain the same, then the outcome(s) experienced in the past will be expected to recur. … If the causal conditions are perceived as likely to change, then … there is likely to be uncertainty about subsequent outcomes’. 22 Locus and controllability are not strongly linked with expectancy of success, because past success (regardless of locus orientation or degree of controllability) will predict future success if conditions remain stable.

By contrast, the link between attributions and ‘goal incentives’ (i.e. task value) is less direct, being mediated instead by the learner's emotions or ‘affective response’. Weiner distinguishes the objective value of achieving a goal (e.g. earning a dollar or learning a skill) from the subjective or affective value of that achievement (e.g. happiness or pride), and argues that there is ‘no blatant reason to believe that objective value is influenced by perceived causality … but [causal ascriptions] do determine or guide emotional reactions, or the subjective consequences of goal attainment’. 22 Other emotional reactions include gratitude, serenity, surprise, anger, guilt, hopelessness, pity and shame. Cognitive processes influence the interplay between an event, the perceived cause and the attributed emotional reaction, with complex and often idiosyncratic results (i.e. how we think influences how we feel). ‘For example, a dollar attained because of good luck could elicit surprise; a dollar earned by hard work might produce pride; and a dollar received from a friend when in need is likely to beget gratitude’, 22 although it might also beget shame or guilt. Weiner distinguishes outcome‐dependent and attribution‐dependent emotions. Outcome‐dependent emotions are the direct result of success (e.g. happiness) or failure (e.g. sadness and frustration). Attribution‐dependent emotions are, as the name implies, determined by the inferred causal dimension: pride and self‐esteem (‘internal’ emotions) are linked with locus; anger, gratitude, guilt, pity and shame (‘social’ emotions) are connected with controllability; and hopelessness and the intensity of many other emotions are associated with stability (i.e. one might feel greater gratitude or greater shame because of a stable cause).

Attribution theory proposes several ‘antecedent conditions’ that influence the attributional process. Environmental antecedents include social norms and information received from self and others (e.g. feedback). Personal antecedents include differences in causal rules, attributional biases and prior knowledge. Attributional biases or errors include: the ‘fundamental attribution error’, in which situation or context‐specific factors are ignored, such that a single event is extrapolated into a universal trait of the individual; self‐serving bias, in which success is ascribed to internal causes and failure is ascribed to external causes; and actor‐observer bias, in which the learner's actions are situation specific and the actions of others are a general trait.

Social‐cognitive theory

Social‐cognitive theory is most generally a theory of learning. It contends that people learn through reciprocal interactions with their environment and by observing others, rather than simply through direct reinforcement of behaviours (as proposed by behaviourist theories of learning). 23 As regards motivation, the theory emphasises that humans are not thoughtless actors responding involuntarily to rewards and punishments, but that cognition governs how individuals interpret their environment and self‐regulate their thoughts, feelings and actions.

Bandura 23 theorised that human performance results from reciprocal interactions between three factors (‘triadic reciprocal determinism’): personal factors (e.g. beliefs, expectations, attitudes and biology), behavioral factors, and environmental factors (both the social and physical environment). Humans are thus proactive and self‐regulating rather than reactive organisms shaped only by the environment; they are ‘both products and producers of their own environments and of their own social systems’. 24 Consider, for example, a medical student in a surgery clerkship that is full of highly competitive peers and is run by a physician with little tolerance of mistakes. Such an environment will interact with the student's personal characteristics (e.g. his confidence, emotions and prior knowledge) to shape how he behaves and whether or not he learns. At the same time, how he behaves will influence the environment and may change some of his personal factors (e.g. his thoughts and feelings). Thus, the extent to which this student is motivated to learn and perform is determined by the reciprocal interactions of his own thoughts and feelings, the nature of the learning environment and his actions.

The active process of regulating one's behaviour and manipulating the environment in pursuit of personal goals is fundamental to functioning as a motivated individual. Whether or not people choose to pursue their goals depends, in no small measure, on beliefs about their own capabilities, values and interests. 24 Chief among these self‐beliefs is self‐efficacy, defined as ‘People's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives’. 25 Self‐efficacy is a belief about what a person can do rather than a personal judgement about one's physical or psychological attributes. 26 In Bandura's words, ‘Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act’. 27 Thus, self‐efficacy forms the foundation for motivated action.

Unlike broader notions of self‐concept or self‐esteem, self‐efficacy is domain, task and context‐specific. For instance, a medical student might report fairly high self‐efficacy for simple suturing but may have much lower self‐efficacy for other surgical procedures, or might have lower self‐efficacy in a competitive environment than in a cooperative one.

Self‐efficacy should not be confused with outcome expectation – the belief that certain outcomes will result from given actions 18 (i.e. the anticipated value to the individual). Because self‐efficacy beliefs help to determine the outcomes one expects, the two constructs are typically positively correlated, yet sometimes self‐efficacy and outcome expectations diverge. For example, a high‐performing, highly efficacious college student may choose not to apply to the most elite medical school because she expects a rejection. In this case, academic self‐efficacy is high but outcome expectations are low. Research indicates that self‐efficacy beliefs are usually better predictors of behaviour than are outcome expectations. 26 , 27 Ultimately, however, both self‐efficacy and favourable outcome expectations are required for optimal motivation. 18

Bandura, Zimmerman and Schunk have identified the key role of self‐efficacy in activating core learning processes, including cognition, motivation, affect and selection. 6 , 25 , 28 , 29 Learners come to any learning task with past experiences, aptitudes and social supports that collectively determine their pre‐task self‐efficacy. Several factors influence self‐efficacy during the task (Fig.  3 ), and during and after the task learners interpret cues that further shape self‐efficacy. 27 Among these sources of self‐efficacy, the most powerful is how learners interpret previous experiences (so‐called enactive mastery experiences ). Generally speaking, successes reinforce one's self‐efficacy, whereas failures weaken it. In addition, learners interpret the outcomes of others’ actions ( modelling ). Learners may adjust their own efficacy beliefs based on such vicarious experiences, particularly if they perceive the model as similar to themselves (e.g. a near‐peer). The influence of verbal persuasion (‘You can do it!’) appears to be limited at best. Furthermore, persuasion that proves unrealistic (e.g. persuasion to attempt a task that results in failure) can damage self‐efficacy and lowers the persuader's credibility. Finally, physiological and emotional information shapes self‐efficacy beliefs: enthusiasm and positive emotions typically enhance self‐efficacy whereas negative emotions diminish it. 24 , 27

Social‐cognitive model of motivated learning. This is adapted from Schunk's model of motivated learning; it incorporates additional concepts from Bandura and other authors. Learners begin a learning task with pre‐existing self‐efficacy determined by past experiences, aptitudes and social supports. Learners can perform the task themselves or watch others (e.g. instructor or peer models) perform the task. During the task, self‐efficacy, together with other personal and situational factors, influences cognitive engagement, motivation to learn, emotional response and task selection. During and after the task, learners perceive and interpret cues that influence self‐efficacy for future tasks. Zimmerman defined a three‐phase self‐regulation cycle that mirrors this model, comprised of forethought (pre‐task), performance and volitional control (during task) and self‐reflection (after task)

One way in which social‐cognitive theory has been operationalised for practical application involves the concept of self‐regulation, which addresses how students manage their motivation and learning. Zimmerman proposed a model of self‐regulation 30 comprising three cyclical stages: forethought (before the task, e.g. appraising self‐efficacy, and establishing goals and strategies), performance (during the task, e.g. self‐monitoring) and self‐reflection (after the task). Self‐regulation is an area of active investigation in medical education. 14 , 15

Goal orientation (achievement goal) theories

The meaning of ‘goals’ in goal orientation theories 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 (also called achievement goal theory) is different from that in most other motivation theories. Rather than referring to learning objectives (‘My goal is to learn about cardiology’), the goals in this cluster of theories refer to broad orientations or purposes in learning that are commonly subconscious. With performance goals the primary concern is to do better than others and avoid looking dumb: ‘I want to get a good grade’. Mastery goals , by contrast, focus on the intrinsic value of learning (i.e. gaining new knowledge or skills): ‘I want to understand the material’. These broad orientations lead in turn to different learning behaviours or approaches. Dweck's theory of ‘implicit theories of intelligence’ takes these two orientations further, suggesting that they reflect learners’ underlying attributions (‘mindsets’, or dispositional attitudes and beliefs) regarding their ability to learn (Fig.  4 ).

Goal orientation theory and implicit theories of intelligence. This is a simplified illustration of Dweck's theory; it does not contain all of the details of her theory and blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. Learners tend toward one of two implicit self‐theories or mindsets regarding their ability. Those with an entity mindset view ability as fixed, and because low performance or difficult learning would threaten their self‐concept they unconsciously pursue ‘performance’ goals that help them to look smart and avoid failure. By contrast, those with an incremental mindset view ability as something to be enhanced with practice, and thus pursue goals that cause them to stretch and grow (‘mastery’ goals). Evidence and further theoretical refinements also support the distinction of performance‐approach goals (‘look smart’; typically associated with high performance) and performance‐avoidance goals (‘avoid failure’; invariably associated with poor performance)

Learners with performance goals have a (subconscious) self‐theory that intelligence or ability is a stable fixed trait (an ‘entity’ mindset). People are either smart (or good at basketball or art) or they're not. Because this stable trait cannot be changed, learners are concerned about looking and feeling like they have ‘enough’, which requires that they perform well. Easy, low‐effort successes make them feel smarter and encourage continued study; challenging, effortful tasks and poor performance are interpreted as indicating low ability and lead learners to progressively disengage and eventually give up. Learners with this entity mindset magnify their failures and forget their successes, give up quickly in the face of challenge, and adopt defensive or self‐sabotaging behaviours. A strong belief in their ability may lead them to persevere after failure. However, low confidence will cause them to disengage into a ‘helpless’ state because it is psychologically safer to blame failure on lack of effort (‘I wasn't really trying’) than on lack of intelligence. Dweck noted, ‘It is ironic that those students who are most concerned with looking smart may be at a disadvantage for this very reason’. 32

Learners with a mastery goal orientation, by contrast, have a self‐theory that intelligence and ability can increase or improve through learning (an ‘incremental’ mindset). People get smarter (or better at basketball or art) by studying and practising. This mindset leads people to seek learning opportunities because these will make them smarter. They thrive on challenge and even initial failure because they have an implicit ‘No pain, no gain’ belief. In fact, even learners with low confidence in their current ability will choose challenging tasks if they have an incremental mindset. Learners with an incremental mindset feel smart when they fully engage in learning and stretch their ability (the mastery goal orientation); easy tasks hold little or no value and failure is viewed as simply a cue to look for a better strategy and exert renewed effort.

Mindsets are related to the controllability and stability dimensions of attribution theory: entity mindsets lead to attributions of fixed and uncontrollable causes (e.g. ability), whereas incremental mindsets lead to attributions of controllable and changeable causes (e.g. effort). 31 , 35 Mindsets are typically a matter of degree, not black‐and‐white, and appear to be domain and situation specific: a learner might have predominantly entity beliefs about procedural tasks but incremental beliefs about communication skills. Mindsets change with age: young children typically have incremental mindsets, whereas most people have shifted toward entity mindsets by age 12. 32

Researchers building on the work of Dweck and others 33 , 36 , 37 have separated performance goals into those that make the learner look good (performance ‘approach’ goals such as trying to outperform others) and those in which the learner tries to avoid looking bad (performance ‘avoidance’ goals such as avoiding challenging or uncertain tasks). 38 , 39 Empirical results from real‐world settings differ for different outcomes: performance‐approach goals are consistently more associated with higher achievement (e.g. better grades) than are mastery goals, whereas mastery goals are associated with greater interest and deep learning strategies. These empirical observations require further explanation but could reflect shortcomings in mastery‐oriented study strategies (i.e. learners focus on areas of interest rather than studying broadly) or grading systems that favour superficial learning. 40 Performance‐avoidance goals, by contrast, are consistently associated with low achievement and other negative outcomes.

One of the most compelling findings of Dweck's theory is that the incremental mindset is teachable. Randomised trials demonstrate that teaching students that the brain is malleable and has limitless learning capacity leads them to seek more, and more difficult, learning opportunities and to persevere in the face of challenge. 32 The duration of this effect and its transfer to future tasks remain incompletely elucidated.

Unfortunately, the entity mindset also appears to be teachable, or at least unintentionally reinforced by individuals and learning climates that encourage competition, frame abilities as static or praise quick and easy success. Feedback intended to boost a learner's confidence (‘You did really well on that test; you must be really smart!’) may inadvertently encourage an entity mindset. Rather than emphasising innate ability, teachers should instill confidence that anyone can learn if they work at it.

Other motivation theories attempt to explain other aspects of goals, such as goal setting and goal content. 6 , 41 Goal orientation theories focus on the why and how of approach and engagement. Goal setting theories focus on the standard of performance, exploring issues such as goal properties (proximity, specificity and difficulty) and the factors that influence goal choice, the targeted level of performance and commitment. 42 Goal content theories focus on what is trying to be achieved (i.e. the expected consequences). Ford and Nichols 41 developed a content taxonomy of 24 basic goals that they categorised as within‐person goals (e.g. entertainment, happiness and intellectual creativity) and goals dealing with interactions between the person and environment (e.g. superiority, belongingness, equity and safety).

Self‐determination theory

Self‐determination theory (Fig.  5 ) posits that motivation varies not only in quantity (magnitude) but also in quality (type and orientation). Humans innately desire to be autonomous – to use their will (the capacity to choose how to satisfy needs) as they interact with their environment – and tend to pursue activities they find inherently enjoyable. Our highest, healthiest and most creative and productive achievements typically occur when we are motivated by an intrinsic interest in the task. Unfortunately, although young children tend to act from intrinsic motivation, by the teenage years and into adulthood we progressively face external (extrinsic) influences to do activities that are not inherently interesting. These influences, coming in the form of career goals, societal values, promised rewards, deadlines and penalties, are not necessarily bad but ultimately subvert intrinsic motivation. Strong evidence indicates that rewards diminish intrinsic motivation. 43 Deci and Ryan developed self‐determination theory to explain how to promote intrinsic motivation and also how to enhance motivation when external pressures are operative.

Self‐determination theory. This is adapted from Ryan and Deci's theory. Self‐determination theory hypothesises three main motivation types: amotivation (lack of motivation), extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, and six ‘regulatory styles’ (dark‐background boxes). Intrinsic motivation (intrinsic regulation) is entirely internal, emerging from pure personal interest, curiosity or enjoyment of the task. At the other extreme, amotivation (non‐regulation) results in inaction or action without real intent. In the middle is extrinsic motivation, with four regulatory styles that vary from external regulation (actions motivated purely by anticipated favourable or unfavourable consequences) to integrated regulation (in which external values and goals have become fully integrated into one's self‐image). The transition from external to integrated regulation requires that values and goals become internalised (personally important) and integrated (fully assimilated into one's sense of self). Internalisation and integration are promoted (or inhibited) by fulfillment (or non‐fulfillment) of three basic psychosocial needs: relatedness, competence and autonomy

Intrinsic motivation is not caused because it is an innate human propensity, but it is alternatively stifled or encouraged by unfavourable or favourable conditions. Cognitive evaluation theory , a sub‐theory of self‐determination theory, proposes that fulfillment of three basic psychosocial needs will foster intrinsic motivation: autonomy (the opportunity to control one's actions), competence (self‐efficacy) and relatedness (a sense of affiliation with or belonging to others to whom one feels [or would like to feel] connected). Autonomy is promoted by providing opportunities for choice, acknowledging feelings, avoiding judgement and encouraging personal responsibility for actions. Rewards, punishments, deadlines, judgemental assessments and other controlling actions all undermine autonomy. Competence is supported by optimal challenge, and by feedback that promotes self‐efficacy (as outlined above) and avoids negativity. Relatedness is promoted through environments exhibiting genuine caring, mutual respect and safety.

In activities motivated by external influences, both the nature of the motivation and the resultant performance vary greatly. The motivation of a medical student who does his homework for fear of punishment is very different from motivation to learn prompted by a sincere desire to provide patients with optimal care. Deci and Ryan proposed that these qualitative differences arise because of differences in the degree to which external forces have been internalised and integrated (assimilated into the individual's sense of self). A second sub‐theory, organismic integration theory, explains these differences.

Organismic integration theory identifies three regulatory styles: intrinsic motivation at one extreme (highly productive and spontaneous), amotivation at the other extreme (complete lack of volition, failure to act or only going through the motions) and extrinsic motivation in between (actions prompted by an external force or regulation). Extrinsic motivation is divided, in turn, into four levels that vary in the degree to which the external regulation has been internalised (taking in a value or regulation) and integrated (further transformation of that regulation into their own self). 44 , 45 The lowest level is external regulation: acting only to earn rewards or avoid punishment. Next is introjected regulation: acting to avoid guilt or anxiety, or to enhance pride or self‐esteem. The regulation has been partially internalised but not accepted as a personal goal. Identified regulation suggests that the external pressure has become a personally important self‐desired goal, but the goal is valued because it is useful rather than because it is inherently desirable. Finally, with integrated regulation the external influences are integrated with internal (intrinsic) interests, becoming part of one's personal identity and aspirations. Regulatory forces with identified and integrated regulation reflect an internal locus of causality (control) and behaviours are perceived as largely autonomous or self‐determined, whereas both external and introjected regulation reflect an external locus of causality. ‘Thus, it is through internalisation and integration that individuals can be extrinsically motivated and still be committed and authentic.’ 45 Research suggests that the same three psychosocial needs described above promote the internalisation and integration of extrinsic motivations, with relatedness and competence being particularly important for internalisation, and autonomy being critical for integration.

Because optimal motivation and well‐being require meeting all three needs, ‘Social contexts that engender conflicts between basic needs set up the conditions for alienation and psychopathology’. 45 The importance of these needs has been confirmed not only in education, but also in workplace performance, patient compliance and overall health and well‐being. 46

Integration across theories

Over the past 25 years, contemporary motivation theories have increasingly shared and borrowed key concepts. 17 For example, all five theories discussed herein acknowledge human cognition as influencing perceptions and exerting powerful motivational controls. All also highlight reciprocal interactions between individuals and their socio‐environmental context. Definitions of expectancy have evolved to reflect substantial overlap with self‐efficacy. Attribution theory emerged from earlier expectancy‐value theories in an effort to explain the origins and antecedents (the ‘Why?’) of expectancies and values, ultimately emphasising the temporal sequence of events and the importance of emotions. Goal orientation theory merged early goal theories with the concept of implicit attributions. Self‐determination theory emphasises both autonomy (locus and control in attribution theory) and competence (very similar to self‐efficacy). With this conceptual overlap, it is easy to get confused with the terms as operationally defined within each theory. Table  2 attempts to clarify these areas of potential confusion.

Through this effort we have identified four recurrent themes among contemporary theories: competence beliefs, value beliefs, attribution and social‐cognitive interactions. We do not suggest that these theories can be reduced to these four concepts, but that these foundational principles underpin a more nuanced understanding of individual theories. Research conducted using one theoretical framework might also yield insights relevant to another.

Given the progressive blurring of boundaries and increasing conceptual overlap, can – or should – we ever achieve a grand unified theory of motivation? We note that each theory shines light on a different region of a larger picture, and thus contributes a unique perspective on a complex phenomenon involving individual learners and varying social contexts, topics and outcomes. Moreover, despite our and others’ efforts 7 , 47 to clarify terminology, conceptual differences among theories run much deeper than dictionary definitions can resolve. Even within a given theoretical domain, different investigators have operationally defined concepts and outcome measures with subtle but important distinctions that lead to vastly different conclusions. 31 , 37 , 39 The degree to which these differences can be both theoretically and empirically reconciled remains to be seen. 17 For now, we encourage maintaining theoretical distinctions while thoughtfully capitalising on overlapping concepts and explicit theoretical integrations for the enrichments they afford.

Implications and conclusions

Other authors have identified practical applications of motivation theory, most often instructional changes that could enhance motivation. 3 , 4 , 6 , 16 , 32 In Table S1 (available online) we provide a short summary of these suggestions, nearly all of which warrant investigation in health professions education. Educators and researchers will need to determine whether to apply these and other interventions to all learners (i.e. to improve the overall learning environment and instructional quality) or only to those with specific motivational characteristics (e.g. low self‐efficacy, entity mindsets, maladaptive attributions or external motivations). 17 , 48 , 49

We will limit our further discussion to considerations for future research. Pintrich 50 identified seven broad questions for motivation research and suggested general research principles for investigating these questions; we summarise these in Table S2 (available online). By way of elaboration or emphasis, we conclude with four broad considerations that cut across theoretical and methodological boundaries.

First, motivation is far from a unitary construct. This may seem obvious, yet both lay educators and researchers commonly speak of ‘motivation’ without clarity regarding a specific theory or conceptual framework. Although different theories rarely contradict one another outright, each theory emphasises different aspects of motivation, different stages of learning, different learning tasks and different outcomes. 17 , 19 , 51 To avoid conceptual confusion and to optimise the theory‐building potential of their work, we encourage researchers to explicitly identify their theoretical lens, to be precise in defining and operationalising different motivational constructs, and to conduct a careful review of theory‐specific literature early in their study planning.

Second, measuring the outcomes of motivation studies is challenging for at least two reasons: the selection of which outcomes (psychological constructs) to measure and the choice of specific instruments to measure the selected outcomes. The choice of outcomes and instruments, and the timing of outcome assessment, can significantly influence study results. For instance, results (and thus conclusions) for mastery and performance‐approach goal orientations vary for different outcomes. 39 Schunk identified four general motivation outcomes (choice of tasks, effort, persistence and achievement) and suggested tools for measuring each of these. 6 Learners can also rate how motivating they perceive a course to be. 52 The outcome(s) most relevant to a given study will depend on the theory and the research question. In turn, for each outcome there are typically multiple measurement approaches and specific instruments, each with strengths and limitations. For example, behaviour‐focused measures diminish the importance of cognitive processes, whereas self‐report measures are limited by the accuracy of self‐perceptions. For all instruments, evidence to support the validity of scores should be deliberately planned, collected and evaluated. 53 , 54

Third, researchers should test clear, practical applications of motivation theory. 50 , 55 , 56 Each of the theories discussed above has empirical evidence demonstrating theory‐predicted associations between a predictor condition (e.g. higher versus lower expectancy of success) and motivation‐related outcomes, but the cause‐effect relationship in these studies (often correlational rather than experimental) is not always clear. Moreover, the practical significance of the findings is sometimes uncertain; for example, does a change in the outcome measure reflect a meaningful and lasting change in the learner, or is it merely an artifact of the study conditions? Well‐planned experiments can strengthen causal links between motivational manipulations and outcomes. 57 We can find examples of interventions intended to optimise self‐efficacy, 28 task value, 5 attributions 17 and mindsets, 32 but research on motivational manipulations remains largely limited in both volume and rigour. 17 Moreover, moderating influences such as context (e.g. classroom, clinical or controlled setting) and learner experience or specialty can significantly impact results. Linking motivational concepts with specific cognitive processes may be instrumental in understanding seemingly inconsistent findings. 17 , 39 Finally, real‐world implementations of research‐based recommendations may be challenged by resource limitations, logistical constraints or lack of buy‐in from administrators and teachers; research on translation and implementation will be essential. 58

Lastly, we call for research that builds and extends motivation theory for education generally 50 and health professions education specifically. Theory‐building research should investigate ‘not only that the intervention works but also why it works (i.e., mediating mechanisms) as well as for whom and under what conditions (i.e., moderating influences)’. 17 Such research not only specifies the theoretical lens, interventions and outcomes, but also considers (and ideally predicts) how independent and dependent variables 2 interact with one another and with the topic, task, environment and learner characteristics. 59 Harackiewicz identified four possible relationships and interactions among motivation‐related variables:

• additive (different factors have independent, additive effects on a single outcome),
• interactive (different factors have complex effects on a single outcome),
• specialised (the impact of a given intervention varies for different outcomes) and
• selective (outcomes for a given intervention vary by situation, e.g. context or topic). 39

We encourage would‐be investigators to further explore theory‐specific literatures to understand conceptual nuances, current evidence, potential interactions, important outcomes and timely questions. 47 , 60

Only research grounded in such solid foundations will provide the theoretical clarity and empirical support needed to optimise motivation to learn in health professions education.

Contributors

DAC and ARA jointly contributed to the conception of the work, drafted the initial manuscript, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version. ARA is an employee of the US Government. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Department of Defense, nor the US Government.

Conflicts of interest

the authors are not aware of any conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

as no human subjects were involved, ethical approval was not required.

Supporting information

Table S1. Summary of practical applications of motivation theory.

Acknowledgments

we thank Kelly Dore for her contributions during the conceptual stages of this review and Adam Sawatsky and Dario Torre for their critiques of manuscript drafts.

The copyright line for this article was changed on 6 October 2016 after original online publication.

Chapter 5 Theories of Motivation

Learning objectives.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do 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.

What inspires employees to provide excellent service, market a company’s products effectively, or achieve the goals set for them? Answering this question is of utmost importance if we are to understand and manage the work behavior of our peers, subordinates, and even supervisors. Put a different way, if someone is not performing well, what could be the reason?

Job performance is viewed as a function of three factors and is expressed with the equation below. Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review , 7 , 80–88; Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance . Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. According to this equation, motivation, ability, and environment are the major influences over employee performance.

Performance is a function of the interaction between an individual’s motivation, ability, and environment.

Motivation is one of the forces that lead to performance. Motivation The desire to achieve a goal or a certain performance level, leading to goal-directed behavior. is defined as the desire to achieve a goal or a certain performance level, leading to goal-directed behavior. 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 Having the skills and knowledge required to perform the job. —or having the skills and knowledge required to perform the job—is also important and is sometimes the key determinant of effectiveness. Finally, environmental External factors that affect performance. factors such as having the resources, information, and support one needs 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 Zappos

It is unique to hear about a CEO who studies happiness and motivation and builds those principles into the company’s core values or about a company with a 5-week training course and an offer of $2,000 to quit anytime during that 5 weeks if you feel the company is not a good fit. Top that off with an on-site life coach who also happens to be a chiropractor, and you are really talking about something you don’t hear about every day. Zappos is known as much for its 365-day return policy and free shipping as it is for its innovative corporate culture. Although acquired in 2009 by Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), Zappos managed to move from number 23 in 2009 on Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” list to 15 in 2010.

Performance is a function of motivation, ability, and the environment in which you work. Zappos seems to be creating an environment that encourages motivation and builds inclusiveness. The company delivers above and beyond basic workplace needs and addresses the self-actualization needs that most individuals desire from their work experience. CEO Tony Hsieh believes that the secret to customer loyalty is to make a corporate culture of caring a priority. This is reflected in the company’s 10 core values and its emphasis on building a team and a family. During the interview process, applicants are asked questions relating to the company’s values, such as gauging their own weirdness, open-mindedness, and sense of family. Although the offer to be paid to quit during the training process has increased from its original number of $400, only 1% of trainees take the offer. Work is structured differently at Zappos as well. For example, there is no limit to the time customer service representatives spend on a phone call, and they are encouraged to make personal connections with the individuals on the other end rather than try to get rid of them.

Although Zappos has over 1,300 employees, the company has been able to maintain a relatively flat organizational structure and prides itself on its extreme transparency. In an exceptionally detailed and lengthy letter to employees, Hsieh spelled out what the new partnership with Amazon would mean for the company, what would change, and more important, what would remain the same. As a result of this type of company structure, individuals have more freedom, which can lead to greater satisfaction.

Although Zappos pays its employees well and offers attractive benefits such as employees receiving full health-care coverage and a compressed workweek, the desire to work at Zappos seems to go beyond that. As Hsieh would say, happiness is the driving force behind almost any action an individual takes. Whether your goals are for achievement, affiliation, or simply to find an enjoyable environment in which to work, Zappos strives to address these needs.

Case written by [citation redacted per publisher request] . Based on information from Robischon, N. (2009, July 22). Amazon buys Zappos for $847 million. Fast Company . Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/noah-robischon/editors-desk/amazon-buys-zappos-807-million ; Walker, A. (2009, March 14). Zappos’ Tony Hsieh on Twitter, phone calls and the pursuit of happiness. Fast Company . Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alissa-walker/member-blog/tony-hsiehs-zapposcom ; Happy feet—Inside the online shoe utopia. (2009, September 14). New Yorker . Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://about.zappos.com/press-center/media-coverage/happy-feet-inside-online-shoe-utopia ; 100 best companies to work for. (2010, February 8). Fortune . Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/snapshots/15.html .

Discussion Questions

• What potential organizational changes might result from the acquisition by Amazon?
• Why do you think Zappos’ approach is not utilized more often? In other words, what are the challenges to these techniques?
• Why do you think Zappos offers a $2,000 incentive to quit?
• Would you be motivated to work at Zappos? Why or why not?

5.2 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

• Explain how employees are motivated according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
• Explain how the ERG (existence, relatedness, growth) theory addresses the limitations of Maslow’s hierarchy.
• Describe the differences among factors contributing to employee motivation and how these differ from factors contributing to dissatisfaction.
• Describe need for achievement, power, and affiliation, and identify how these acquired needs affect work behavior.

The earliest studies of motivation involved an examination of individual needs. Specifically, early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate goal-driven behavior in order to satisfy needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship, and his behavior may be a way of satisfying this need. At the time, researchers developed theories to understand what people need. Four theories may be placed under this category: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, ERG theory, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, 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 premise: Human beings have needs that are hierarchically ranked. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 , 370–396; Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper. 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.

Figure 5.3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The most basic of Maslow’s needs are physiological needs The need for air, food, and water. . 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 behavior 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 The need to be free from danger and pain. . Are they free from the threat of danger, pain, or an uncertain future? On the next level up, social needs The needs of bonding with other human beings, being loved, and forming lasting attachments with them. 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, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 117 , 497–529. The satisfaction of social needs makes esteem needs The desire to be respected by one’s peers, feel important, and be appreciated. more salient. Esteem need refers 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 The need to become all you are capable of becoming. 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.

Maslow was a clinical psychologist, and his theory was not originally designed for work settings. In fact, his theory was based on his observations of individuals in clinical settings; some of the individual components of the theory found little empirical support. One criticism relates to the order in which the needs are ranked. It is possible to imagine that individuals who go hungry and are in fear of their lives might retain strong bonds to others, suggesting a different order of needs. Moreover, researchers failed to support the arguments that once a need is satisfied it no longer serves as a motivator and that only one need is dominant at a given time. Neher, A. (1991). Maslow’s theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 31 , 89–112; Rauschenberger, J., Schmitt, N., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). A test of the need hierarchy concept by a Markov model of change in need strength. Administrative Science Quarterly , 25 , 654–670.

Despite the lack of strong research support, Maslow’s theory found obvious applications in business settings. Understanding what people need gives us clues to understanding them. The hierarchy is a systematic way of thinking about the different needs employees may have at any given point and explains different reactions they may have to similar treatment. An employee who is trying to satisfy esteem needs may feel gratified when her supervisor praises an accomplishment. However, another employee who is trying to satisfy social needs may resent being praised by upper management in front of peers if the praise sets the individual apart from the rest of the group.

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 with others. Company picnics and other social get-togethers may also be helpful if the majority of employees are motivated primarily by social needs (but may cause resentment if they are not and if they have to 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.

ERG theory includes existence, relatedness, and growth.

Source: Based on Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 4 , 142–175.

ERG theory, developed by Clayton Alderfer, is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 4 , 142–175. Instead of the five needs that are hierarchically organized, Alderfer proposed that basic human needs may be grouped under three categories, namely, existence, relatedness, and growth. Existence A need corresponding to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs. corresponds to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs, relatedness A need corresponding to Maslow’s social needs. corresponds to social needs, and growth A need referring to Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization. refers to Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization.

ERG theory’s main contribution to the literature is its relaxation of Maslow’s assumptions. For example, ERG theory does not rank needs in any particular order and explicitly recognizes that more than one need may operate at a given time. Moreover, the theory has a “frustration-regression” hypothesis suggesting that individuals who are frustrated in their attempts to satisfy one need may regress to another. For example, someone who is frustrated by the growth opportunities in his job and progress toward career goals may regress to relatedness need and start spending more time socializing with coworkers. The implication of this theory is that we need to recognize the multiple needs that may be driving individuals at a given point to understand their behavior and properly motivate them.

Two-Factor Theory

Frederick Herzberg approached the question of motivation in a different way. By asking individuals what satisfies them on the job and what dissatisfies them, Herzberg came to the conclusion that aspects of the work environment that satisfy employees are very different from aspects that dissatisfy them. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . New York: John Wiley; Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology , 18 , 393–402. Herzberg labeled factors causing dissatisfaction of workers as “hygiene” factors because these factors were part of the context in which the job was performed, as opposed to the job itself. Hygiene factors Company policies, supervision, working conditions, salary, safety, and security on the job. included company policies, supervision, working conditions, salary, safety, and security on the job. To illustrate, imagine that you are working in an unpleasant work environment. Your office is too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. You are being harassed and mistreated. You would certainly be miserable in such a work environment. However, if these problems were solved (your office temperature is just right and you are not harassed at all), would you be motivated? Most likely, you would take the situation for granted. In fact, many factors in our work environment are things that we miss when they are absent but take for granted if they are present.

In contrast, motivators Factors that are intrinsic to the job, such as achievement, recognition, interesting work, increased responsibilities, advancement, and growth opportunities. are factors that are intrinsic to the job, such as achievement, recognition, interesting work, increased responsibilities, advancement, and growth opportunities. According to Herzberg’s research, motivators are the conditions that truly encourage employees to try harder.

The two-factor theory of motivation includes hygiene factors and motivators.

Sources: Based on Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . New York: John Wiley and Sons; Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology , 18 , 393–402.

Herzberg’s research is far from being universally accepted. Cummings, L. L., & Elsalmi, A. M. (1968). Empirical research on the bases and correlates of managerial motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 70 , 127–144; House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology , 20 , 369–389. One criticism relates to the primary research methodology employed when arriving at hygiene versus motivators. When people are asked why they are satisfied, they may attribute the causes of satisfaction to themselves, whereas when explaining what dissatisfies them, they may blame the situation. The classification of the factors as hygiene or motivator is not that simple either. For example, the theory views pay as a hygiene factor. However, pay may have symbolic value by showing employees that they are being recognized for their contributions as well as communicating that they are advancing within the company. Similarly, the quality of supervision or the types of relationships employees form with their supervisors may determine whether they are assigned interesting work, whether they are recognized for their potential, and whether they take on more responsibilities.

Despite its limitations, the theory can be a valuable aid to managers because it points out that improving the environment in which the job is performed goes only so far in motivating employees. Undoubtedly, contextual factors matter because their absence causes dissatisfaction. However, solely focusing on hygiene factors will not be enough, and managers should also enrich jobs by giving employees opportunities for challenging work, greater responsibilities, advancement opportunities, and a job in which their subordinates can feel successful.

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 as a result 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 behavior.

McClelland used a unique method called the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) A test that assesses a person’s dominant needs. to assess the dominant need. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin , 112 , 140–154. This method entails presenting research subjects an ambiguous picture asking them to write a story based on it. 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.

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 Having a strong need to be successful. 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, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 , 33–52. 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, D. J. (1982). Determinants of choice of goal difficulty level: A review of situational and personality influences. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 55 , 79–95. They are particularly suited to positions such as sales, where there are explicit goals, feedback is immediately available, and their effort often leads to success. In fact, they are more attracted to organizations that are merit-based and reward performance rather than seniority. They also do particularly well as entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers. Harrell, A. M., & Stahl, M. J. (1981). A behavioral decision theory approach for measuring McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 66 , 242–247; Trevis, C. S., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons , 48 , 271–274; Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193.

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, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology , 67 , 737–743. However, a high need for achievement has significant disadvantages in management positions. Management involves getting work done by motivating others. When a salesperson is promoted to be a sales manager, the job description changes from actively selling to recruiting, motivating, and training salespeople. Those who are high in need for achievement may view managerial activities such as coaching, communicating, and meeting with subordinates as a waste of time and may neglect these aspects of their jobs. Moreover, those high in need for achievement enjoy doing things themselves and may find it difficult to delegate any meaningful authority to their subordinates. These individuals often micromanage, expecting others to approach tasks a particular way, and may become overbearing bosses by expecting everyone to display high levels of dedication. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review , 25 , 159–166.

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 Wanting to be liked and accepted by others. want to be liked and accepted by others. When given a choice, they prefer to interact with others and be with friends. Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 60 , 154–164. Their emphasis on harmonious interpersonal relationships may be an advantage in jobs and occupations requiring frequent interpersonal interaction, such as a social worker or teacher. In managerial positions, a high need for affiliation may again serve as a disadvantage because these individuals tend to be overly concerned about how they are perceived by others. They may find it difficult to perform some aspects of a manager’s job such as giving employees critical feedback or disciplining poor performers. Thus, the work environment may be characterized by mediocrity and may even lead to high performers leaving the team.

Finally, if your story contains elements of getting work done by influencing other people or desiring to make an impact on the organization, you may have a high need for power. Those with a high need for power Wanting to influence others and control their environment. 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. However, when it manifests itself in more altruistic forms such as changing the way things are done so that the work environment is more positive, or negotiating more resources for one’s department, it tends to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, the need for power is viewed as an important trait for effectiveness in managerial and leadership positions. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review , 25 , 159–166; Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 60 , 439–455; Spreier, S. W. (2006). Leadership run amok. Harvard Business Review , 84 , 72–82.

McClelland’s theory of acquired needs has important implications for the motivation of employees. Managers need to understand the dominant needs of their employees to be able to motivate them. While people who have a high need for achievement may respond to goals, those with a high need for power may attempt to gain influence over those they work with, and individuals high in their need for affiliation may be motivated to gain the approval of their peers and supervisors. Finally, those who have a high drive for success may experience difficulties in managerial positions, and making them aware of common pitfalls may increase their effectiveness.

Key Takeaway

Need-based theories describe motivated behavior as individuals’ efforts to meet their needs. According to this perspective, the manager’s job is to identify what people need and make the work environment a means of satisfying these needs. Maslow’s hierarchy describes five categories of basic human needs, including physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs. These needs are hierarchically ranked, and as a lower level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a motivator. ERG theory is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy, in which the five needs are collapsed into three categories (existence, relatedness, and growth). The theory recognizes that when employees are frustrated while attempting to satisfy higher level needs, they may regress. The two-factor theory differentiates between factors that make people dissatisfied on the job (hygiene factors) and factors that truly motivate employees (motivators). Finally, acquired-needs theory argues that individuals possess stable and dominant motives to achieve, acquire power, or affiliate with others. The type of need that is dominant will drive behavior. Each of these theories explains characteristics of a work environment that motivates employees. These theories paved the way to process-based theories that explain the mental calculations employees make to decide how to behave.

• Many managers assume that if an employee is not performing well, the reason must be a lack of motivation. Do you think this reasoning is accurate? What is the problem with the assumption?
• Review Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Do you agree with the particular ranking of employee needs?
• How can an organization satisfy employee needs that are included in Maslow’s hierarchy?
• Which motivation theory have you found to be most useful in explaining why people behave in a certain way? Why?
• Review the hygiene and motivators in the two-factor theory of motivation. Do you agree with the distinction between hygiene factors and motivators? Are there any hygiene factors that you would consider to be motivators?
• A friend of yours demonstrates the traits of achievement motivation: This person is competitive, requires frequent and immediate feedback, and enjoys accomplishing things and doing things better than she did before. She has recently been promoted to a managerial position and seeks your advice. What would you tell her?

5.3 Process-Based Theories

• Explain how employees evaluate the fairness of reward distributions.
• Describe the three types of fairness that affect employee attitudes and behaviors.
• List the three questions individuals consider when deciding whether to put forth effort at work.
• Describe how managers can use learning and reinforcement principles to motivate employees.

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 rational process. Individuals analyze their environment, develop thoughts and feelings, and react in certain ways. Process theories attempt to explain the thought processes of individuals who demonstrate motivated behavior. 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 particular 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? How would you describe what you would be feeling?

Equity is determined by comparing one’s input-outcome ratio with the input-outcome ratio of a referent. When the two ratios are equal, equity exists.

Source: Based on Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

If your reaction to this scenario is along the lines of “this would be unfair,” your behavior may be explained using equity theory. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press. 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 similar to the input-to-outcome ratio of a comparison person, or a referent A person we compare ourselves to in equity theory. . 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.

We should emphasize that equity perceptions develop as a result of a subjective process. Different people may look at the same situation and perceive different levels of equity. For example, another person may look at the same scenario and decide that the situation is fair because the newcomer has computer skills and the company is paying extra for those skills.

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 the nature of 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, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of Management Review , 3 , 202–210; Goodman, P. S., & Friedman, A. (1971). An examination of Adams’ theory of inequity. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 , 271–288. 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, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 54 , 81–103. 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, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1972). Withdrawal and reward reallocation as responses to inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 8 , 207–211. 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 the United States.

Table 5.1 Potential Responses to Inequity

Source: Based on research findings reported in Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of Management Review , 3 , 202–210; Goodman, P. S., & Friedman, A. (1971). An examination of Adams’s theory of inequity. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 , 271–288; Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 54 , 81–103; Schmidt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1972). Withdrawal and reward reallocation as responses to inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 8 , 207–211.

Overpayment Inequity

What would you do if you felt you were over-rewarded? In other words, how would you feel if you were the new employee in our student-worker scenario? Originally, equity theory proposed that over-rewarded individuals would experience guilt and would increase their effort to restore perceptions of equity. However, research does not provide support for this argument. Instead, it seems that individuals experience less distress as a result of being over-rewarded. Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , 208–216. It is not hard to imagine that individuals find perceptual ways to deal with a situation like this, such as believing they have more skills and bring more to the situation compared to the referent person. Therefore, research does not support equity theory’s predictions with respect to people who are overpaid. Evan, W. M., & Simmons, R. G. (1969). Organizational effects of inequitable rewards: Two experiments in status inconsistency. IEEE Engineering Management Review , 1 , 95–108.

Individual Differences in Reactions to Inequity

So far, we have assumed that once people feel a situation is inequitable, they will be motivated to react. However, does inequity disturb everyone equally? Researchers have identified a personality trait that explains different reactions to inequity and named this trait as equity sensitivity A personality trait that explains different reactions to inequity. . Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review , 12 , 222–234. Equity-sensitive individuals expect to maintain equitable relationships, and they experience distress when they feel they are over-rewarded or under-rewarded. At the same time, there are some individuals who are benevolents Individuals who give without waiting to receive much in return. , those who give without waiting to receive much in return, and entitleds Individuals who expect to receive a lot without giving much in return. , who expect to receive substantial compensation for relatively little input. Therefore, the theory is more useful in explaining the behavior of equity-sensitive individuals, and organizations will need to pay particular attention to how these individuals view their relationships.

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 The degree to which the outcomes received from the organization are fair. 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.

Figure 5.8 Dimensions of Organizational 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 would perceive high distributive justice (your getting the 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 The degree to which fair decision-making procedures are used to arrive at a decision. 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, B. J. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 797–804; Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 892–903; Kidwell, R. E. (1995). Pink slips without tears. Academy of Management Executive , 9 , 69–70. People also tend to care more about procedural justice in situations in which they do not get the outcome they feel they deserve. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin , 120 , 189–208. 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, J., Fishman, A. Y., Reb, J., Goldman, B., Spiegel, S., & Garden, C. (2007). Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority’s responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 1657–1671.

Why do employees care about procedural justice? There are three potential reasons. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34–48; Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 , 850–863; Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 913–930. First, people tend to believe that fairness is an end in itself and it is the right thing to do. Second, fair processes guarantee future rewards. If your name was picked out of a hat, you have no control over the process, and there is no guarantee that you will get future promotions. If the procedures are fair, you are more likely to believe that things will work out in the future. Third, fairness communicates that the organization values its employees and cares about their well-being.

Research has identified many ways of achieving procedural justice. For example, giving employees advance notice before laying them off, firing them, or disciplining them is perceived as fair. Kidwell, R. E. (1995). Pink slips without tears. Academy of Management Executive , 9 , 69–70. Advance notice helps employees get ready for the changes facing them or gives them an opportunity to change their behavior before it is too late. Allowing employees voice in decision making is also important. Alge, B. J. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 797–804; Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 916–928; Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, C. P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59 , 952–959. When designing a performance-appraisal system or implementing a reorganization, it may be a good idea to ask people for their input because it increases perceptions of fairness. Even when it is not possible to have employees participate, providing explanations to employees is helpful in fostering procedural justice. Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & William, B. F. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , 455–460. Finally, people expect consistency in treatment. Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 892–903. If one person is given extra time when taking a test while another is not, individuals would perceive decision making as unfair.

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 The degree to which people are treated with respect, kindness, and dignity in interpersonal interactions. 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, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 58–69.

OB Toolbox: Be a Fair Person!

• When distributing rewards, make sure you pay attention to different contribution levels of employees . Treating everyone equally could be unfair if they participated and contributed at different levels. People who are more qualified, skilled, or those who did more than others expect to receive a greater share of rewards.
• Sometimes you may have to disregard people’s contributions to distribute certain rewards . Some rewards or privileges may be better distributed equally (e.g., health insurance) or based on the particular employee’s needs (such as unpaid leave for health reasons).
• Pay attention to how you make decisions . Before making a decision, ask people to give you their opinions if possible. Explain your decisions to people who are affected by it. Before implementing a change, give people advance notice. Enforce rules consistently among employees.
• Pay attention to how you talk to people . Treat others the way you want to be treated. Be kind, courteous, and considerate of their feelings.
• Remember that justice is in the eye of the beholder . Even when you feel you are being fair, others may not feel the same way, and it is their perception that counts. Therefore, pay attention to being perceived as fair.
• People do not care only about their own justice level . They also pay attention to how others are treated as well. Therefore, in addition to paying attention to how specific employees feel, creating a sense of justice in the entire organization is important.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 633–646; Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34–48.

Employers would benefit from paying attention to all three types of justice perceptions. In addition to being the right thing to do, paying attention to justice perceptions leads to outcomes companies care about. Injustice is directly harmful to employees’ psychological health and well-being and contributes to stress. Greenberg, J. (2004). Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics , 33 , 352–365; Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 86 , 197–215. High levels of justice create higher levels of employee commitment to organizations, and they are related to higher job performance, higher levels of organizational citizenship (behaviors that are not part of one’s job description but help the organization in other ways, such as speaking positively about the company and helping others), and higher levels of customer satisfaction. Conversely, low levels of justice lead to retaliation and support of unionization. Blader, S. L. (2007). What leads organizational members to collectivize? Injustice and identification as precursors of union certification. Organization Science , 18 , 108–126; Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 86 , 278–321; Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 425–445; Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21 , 34–48; Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 594–604; Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal , 43 , 738–748; Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 , 845–855; Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 434–443.

Expectancy Theory

According to expectancy theory, individual motivation to put forth more or less effort is determined by a rational calculation in which individuals evaluate their situation. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance . Homewood, IL: Irwin; Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York: Wiley. According to this theory, individuals ask themselves three questions.

Figure 5.9 Summary of Expectancy Theory

Sources: Based on Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance . Homewood, IL: Irwin; Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York: Wiley.

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 Whether the person believes that high levels of effort will lead to outcomes of interest such as performance or success. . 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 The degree to which the person believes that performance is related to secondary outcomes such as rewards. . 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 The value of the rewards awaiting the person as a result of performance. . 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, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin , 78 , 1–9; Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 575–586. 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 : 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 : 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 : 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, C. W. (1980). Guidelines for managing motivation. Business Horizons , 23 , 61–69.

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 behaviors 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.

Influencing Instrumentality Perceptions

Showing employees that their performance is rewarded is going to increase instrumentality perceptions. Therefore, the first step in influencing instrumentality is to connect pay and other rewards to performance using bonuses, award systems, and merit pay. However, this is not always sufficient, because people may not be aware of some of the rewards awaiting high performers. Publicizing any contests or award programs is needed to bring rewards to the awareness of employees. It is also important to highlight that performance, not something else, is being rewarded. For example, if a company has an employee of the month award that is rotated among employees, employees are unlikely to believe that performance is being rewarded. This type of meritless reward system may actually hamper the motivation of the highest performing employees by eroding instrumentality.

Influencing Valence

Employees are more likely to be motivated if they find the reward to be attractive. This process involves managers finding what their employees value. Desirable rewards tend to be fair and satisfy different employees’ diverging needs. Ensuring high valence involves getting to know a company’s employees. Talking to employees and surveying them about what rewards they find valuable are some methods to gain understanding. Finally, giving employees a choice between multiple rewards may be a good idea to increase valence.

Figure 5.10 Ways in Which Managers Can Influence Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence

Reinforcement Theory

Reinforcement theory is based on the work of Ivan Pavlov on behavioral conditioning and the later work of B. F. Skinner on operant conditioning. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . New York: Free Press. According to reinforcement theory, behavior is a function of its outcomes. Imagine that even though no one asked you to, you stayed late and drafted a report. When the manager found out, she was ecstatic and took you out to lunch and thanked you genuinely. The consequences following your good deed were favorable, and therefore you are more likely to demonstrate similar behaviors in the future. In other words, your taking initiative was reinforced. Instead, if your manager had said nothing about it and everyone ignored the sacrifice you made, you are less likely to demonstrate similar behaviors in the future.

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 manipulating a faucet leads to water coming out and finds this outcome pleasant, he is more likely to repeat the behavior. 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 behavior ignored, or worse, negative behavior 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. Moreover, it is common for people to be rewarded for the wrong kind of behavior. Steven Kerr has labeled this phenomenon “the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B.” Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive , 9 , 7–14. For example, a company may make public statements about the importance of quality. Yet, if they choose to reward shipments on time regardless of the amount of defects contained in the shipments, employees are more likely to ignore quality and focus on hurrying the delivery process. Because people learn to repeat their behaviors based on the consequences following their prior activities, managers will need to systematically examine the consequences of employee behavior and make interventions when needed.

Reinforcement Interventions

Reinforcement theory describes four interventions to modify employee behavior. Two of these are methods of increasing the frequency of desired behaviors, while the remaining two are methods of reducing the frequency of undesired behaviors.

Figure 5.11 Reinforcement Methods

Positive reinforcement Making sure that behavior is met with positive consequences. is a method of increasing the desired behavior. Beatty, R. W., & Schneier, C. E. (1975). A case for positive reinforcement. Business Horizons , 18 , 57–66. Positive reinforcement involves making sure that behavior 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 behavior, the employee will see a link between the behavior and positive consequences and will be motivated to repeat similar behaviors.

Negative reinforcement Removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behavior is demonstrated. is also used to increase the desired behavior. Negative reinforcement involves removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behavior 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 behavior is demonstrated. The problem with negative reinforcement is that the negative stimulus may lead to unexpected behaviors and may fail to stimulate the desired behavior. For example, the person may start avoiding the manager to avoid being nagged.

Extinction The removal of rewards following negative behavior. is used to decrease the frequency of negative behaviors. Extinction is the removal of rewards following negative behavior. Sometimes, negative behaviors are demonstrated because they are being inadvertently rewarded. For example, it has been shown that when people are rewarded for their unethical behaviors, they tend to demonstrate higher levels of unethical behaviors. Harvey, H. W., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 , 451–457. Thus, when the rewards following unwanted behaviors are removed, the frequency of future negative behaviors may be reduced. For example, if a coworker 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 Presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviors. is another method of reducing the frequency of undesirable behaviors. Punishment involves presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviors. Giving an employee a warning for consistently being late to work is an example of punishment.

Reinforcement Schedules

In addition to types of reinforcements, researchers have focused their attention on schedules of reinforcement as well. Beatty, R. W., & Schneier, C. E. (1975). A case for positive reinforcement. Business Horizons , 18 , 57–66. Reinforcement is presented on a continuous schedule When reinforcers follow all instances of positive behavior. if reinforcers follow all instances of positive behavior. An example of a continuous schedule would be giving an employee a sales commission every time he makes a sale. In many instances, continuous schedules are impractical. For example, it would be difficult to praise an employee every time he shows up to work on time. Fixed-ratio schedules Rewarding behavior after a set number of occurrences. involve providing rewards every nth time the right behavior is demonstrated. An example of this would be giving the employee a bonus for every tenth sale he makes. Variable ratio Providing the reinforcement on a random pattern. involves providing the reinforcement on a random pattern, such as praising the employee occasionally when the person shows up on time. In the case of continuous schedules, behavioral change is more temporary. Once the reward is withdrawn, the person may stop performing the desired behavior. The most durable results occur under variable ratios, but there is also some evidence that continuous schedules produce higher performance than do variable schedules. Beatty, R. W., & Schneier, C. E. (1975). A case for positive reinforcement. Business Horizons , 18 , 57–66; Cherrington, D. J., & Cherrington, J. O. (1974). Participation, performance, and appraisal. Business Horizons , 17 , 35–44; Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1982). Employee reactions to continuous and variable ratio reinforcement schedules involving a monetary incentive. Journal of Applied Psychology , 67 , 506–508; Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1975). Consequences of reinforcement schedules and incentive magnitudes for employee performance: Problems encountered in an industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 , 294–298.

OB Toolbox: Be Effective in Your Use of Discipline

As a manager, sometimes you may have to discipline an employee to eliminate unwanted behavior. Here are some tips to make this process more effective.

• Consider whether punishment is the most effective way to modify behavior . Sometimes catching people in the act of doing good things and praising or rewarding them is preferable to punishing negative behavior. Instead of criticizing them for being late, consider praising them when they are on time. Carrots may be more effective than sticks. You can also make the behavior extinct by removing any rewards that follow undesirable behavior.
• Be sure that the punishment fits the crime . If a punishment is too harsh, both the employee in question and coworkers who will learn about the punishment will feel it is unfair. Unfair punishment may not change unwanted behavior.
• Be consistent in your treatment of employees . Have disciplinary procedures and apply them in the same way to everyone. It is unfair to enforce a rule for one particular employee but then give others a free pass.
• Document the behavior in question . If an employee is going to be disciplined, the evidence must go beyond hearsay.
• Be timely with discipline . When a long period of time passes between behavior and punishment, it is less effective in reducing undesired behavior because the connection between the behavior and punishment is weaker.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management , 25 , 231–292; Guffey, C. J., & Helms, M. M. (2001). Effective employee discipline: A case of the Internal Revenue Service. Public Personnel Management , 30 , 111–128.

A systematic way in which reinforcement theory principles are applied is called Organizational Behavior Modification (or OB Mod A systematic application of reinforcement theory to modify employee behaviors in the workplace. ). Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. D. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Management Executive , 13 , 49–57. This is a systematic application of reinforcement theory to modify employee behaviors in the workplace. The model consists of five stages. The process starts with identifying the behavior that will be modified. Let’s assume that we are interested in reducing absenteeism among employees. In step 2, we need to measure the baseline level of absenteeism. How many times a month is a particular employee absent? In step 3, the behavior’s antecedents and consequences are determined. Why is this employee absent? More importantly, what is happening when the employee is absent? If the behavior is being unintentionally rewarded (e.g., the person is still getting paid or is able to avoid unpleasant assignments because someone else is doing them), we may expect these positive consequences to reinforce the absenteeism. Instead, to reduce the frequency of absenteeism, it will be necessary to think of financial or social incentives to follow positive behavior and negative consequences to follow negative behavior. In step 4, an intervention is implemented. Removing the positive consequences of negative behavior may be an effective way of dealing with the situation, or, in persistent situations, punishments may be used. Finally, in step 5 the behavior is measured periodically and maintained.

Studies examining the effectiveness of OB Mod have been supportive of the model in general. A review of the literature found that OB Mod interventions resulted in 17% improvement in performance. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975–1995. Academy of Management Journal , 40 , 1122–1149. Particularly in manufacturing settings, OB Mod was an effective way of increasing performance, although positive effects were observed in service organizations as well.

Figure 5.12 Stages of Organizational Behavior Modification

Source: Based on information presented in Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975–1995. Academy of Management Journal , 40 , 1122–1149.

Process-based theories use the mental processes of employees as the key to understanding employee motivation. According to equity theory, employees are demotivated when they view reward distribution as unfair. Perceptions of fairness are shaped by the comparisons they make between their inputs and outcomes with respect to a referent’s inputs and outcomes. Following equity theory, research identified two other types of fairness (procedural and interactional) that also affect worker reactions and motivation. According to expectancy theory, employees are motivated when they believe that their effort will lead to high performance (expectancy), when they believe that their performance will lead to outcomes (instrumentality), and when they find the outcomes following performance to be desirable (valence). Reinforcement theory argues that behavior is a function of its consequences. By properly tying rewards to positive behaviors, eliminating rewards following negative behaviors, and punishing negative behaviors, leaders can increase the frequency of desired behaviors. These three theories are particularly useful in designing reward systems within a company.

• Your manager tells you that the best way of ensuring fairness in reward distribution is to keep the pay a secret. How would you respond to this assertion?
• When distributing bonuses or pay, how would you ensure perceptions of fairness?
• What are the differences between procedural, interactional, and distributive justice? List ways in which you could increase each of these justice perceptions.
• Using examples, explain the concepts of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.
• Some practitioners and researchers consider OB Mod unethical because it may be viewed as a way of manipulation. What would be your reaction to such a criticism?

5.4 The Role of Ethics and National Culture

• Consider the role of motivation for ethical behavior.
• Consider the role of national culture on motivation theories.

Motivation and Ethics

What motivates individuals to behave unethically? Motivation theories have been applied to explain this interesting and important question. One theory that has been particularly successful in explaining ethical behavior is reinforcement theory. Just like any other behavior such as performance or cooperation, ethical behavior is one that is learned as a result of the consequences following one’s actions. For example, in an experiment simulating the job of a sales manager, participants made a series of decisions using a computer. Partway through the simulation, subjects were informed that salespeople reporting to them were giving kickbacks to customers. Subjects in this experiment were more likely to cut the kickbacks if there was a threat of punishment to the manager. On the other hand, subjects playing the sales manager were more likely to continue giving away the kickbacks if they made a profit after providing the kickbacks. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 , 451–457. In a separate study highlighting the importance of rewards and punishments, researchers found that the severity of expected punishment was the primary predictor of whether subjects reported inclination to behave unethically. In addition to the severity of the punishment, the perceived likelihood of punishment was also a major influence of ethical behavior. Rettig, S., & Rawson, H. E. (1963). The risk hypothesis in predictive judgments of unethical behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66 , 243–248. These findings highlight the importance of rewards and punishments for motivating unethical behaviors.

There are many organizational situations in which individuals may do unethical things but then experience positive consequences such as being awarded promotions for meeting their sales quotas. For example, in many hotels, staff members routinely receive kickbacks from restaurants or bars if they refer customers to those locations. Elliott, C. (2007). Is your bellhop on the take? National Geographic Traveler , 24 (3), 18–20. Similarly, sales staff rewarded with spiffs (product-specific sales incentives) may give customers advice that goes against their own personal beliefs and in this sense act unethically. Radin, T. J., & Predmore, C. E. (2002). The myth of the salesperson: Intended and unintended consequences of product-specific sales incentives. Journal of Business Ethics , 36 , 79–92. As long as unethical behavior is followed by positive consequences for the person in question, we would expect unethical behavior to continue. Thus, in order to minimize the occurrence of unethical behavior (and in some instances legal problems), it seems important to examine the rewards and punishments that follow unethical behavior and remove rewards following unethical behavior while increasing the severity and likelihood of punishment.

Motivation Around the Globe

Motivation is a culturally bound topic. In other words, the factors that motivate employees in different cultures may not be equivalent. The motivation theories we cover in this chapter are likely to be culturally bound because they were developed by Western researchers and the majority of the research supporting each theory was conducted on Western subjects.

Based on the cultural context, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs may require modification because the ranking of the needs may differ across cultures. For example, a study conducted in 39 countries showed that financial satisfaction was a stronger predictor of overall life satisfaction in developing nations compared to industrialized nations. In industrialized nations, satisfaction with esteem needs was a more powerful motivator than it was in developing nations. Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 , 980–990.

People around the world value justice and fairness. However, what is perceived as fair may be culturally dependent. Moreover, people in different cultures may react differently to perceived unfairness. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27 , 1–17; Mueller, C. W., & Wynn, T. (2000). The degree to which justice is valued in the workplace. Social Justice Research , 13 , 1–24. For example, in cross-cultural studies, it was found that participants in low power distance cultures such as the United States and Germany valued voice into the process (the opportunities for explanation and appealing a decision) more than those in high power distance cultures such as China and Mexico. At the same time, interactional justice was valued more by the Chinese subjects. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 37 , 300–315; Tata, J. (2005). The influence of national culture on the perceived fairness of grading procedures: A comparison of the United States and China. Journal of Psychology , 139 , 401–412. There is also some evidence indicating that equity (rewarding employees based on their contributions to a group) may be a culture-specific method of achieving fairness. One study shows that Japanese subjects viewed equity as less fair and equality-based distributions as more fair than did Australian subjects. Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K., & Isaka, H. (1988). Universalism in lay conceptions of distributive justice: A cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Psychology , 23 , 51–64. Similarly, subjects in different cultures varied in their inclination to distribute rewards based on subjects’ need or age, and in cultures such as Japan and India, a person’s need may be a relevant factor in reward distributions. Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K., & Isaka, H. (1988). Universalism in lay conceptions of distributive justice: A cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Psychology , 23 , 51–64; Murphy-Berman, V., Berman, J., Singh, P., Pachauri, A., & Kumar, P. (1984). Factors affecting allocation to needy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 , 1267–1272.

Motivation theories are particularly useful for understanding why employees behave unethically. Based on reinforcement theory, people will demonstrate higher unethical behaviors if their unethical behaviors are followed by rewards or go unpunished. Similarly, according to expectancy theory, if people believe that their unethical actions will be rewarded with desirable outcomes, they are more likely to demonstrate unethical behaviors. In terms of culture, some of the motivation theories are likely to be culture-bound, whereas others may more readily apply to other cultures. Existing research shows that what is viewed as fair or unfair tends to be culturally defined.

• What is the connection between a company’s reward system and the level of ethical behaviors?
• Which of the motivation theories do you think would be more applicable to many different cultures?

5.5 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.

Case written by [citation redacted per publisher request] . Based on information from Lewis, L. (2005). Trader Joe’s adventure . Chicago: Dearborn Trade; McGregor, J., Salter, C., Conley, L., Haley, F., Sacks, D., & Prospero, M. (2004). Customers first. Fast Company, 87 , 79–88; Speizer, I. (2004). Shopper’s special. Workforce Management, 83 , 51–55.

• How much of Trader Joe’s success can be attributed to the fact that most larger chain grocery stores do not sell the type of food available at Trader Joe’s?
• Is pay enough of an incentive to continue at a job you do not enjoy?
• Trader Joe’s promotes entirely from within the organization. This means that if you are a good, dedicated worker, you can rise up within the company. Do you feel employees would be as dedicated to the company if this were not the case? Would high pay be enough to keep employees? What if the company only promoted from within but pay were not as good?

5.6 Conclusion

In this chapter we have reviewed the basic motivation theories that have been developed to explain motivated behavior. Several theories view motivated behavior 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 behavior using the cognitive processes of employees. Employees respond to unfairness in their environment, they learn from the consequences of their actions and repeat the behaviors 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 behaviors in the workplace.

5.7 Exercises

Ethical dilemma.

Companies are interested in motivating employees: Work hard, be productive, behave ethically—and stay healthy. Health care costs are rising, and employers are finding that unhealthy habits such as smoking or being overweight are costing companies big bucks.

Your company is concerned about the rising health care costs and decides to motivate employees to adopt healthy habits. Therefore, employees are given a year to quit smoking. If they do not quit by then, they are going to lose their jobs. New employees will be given nicotine tests, and the company will avoid hiring new smokers in the future. The company also wants to encourage employees to stay healthy. For this purpose, employees will get cash incentives for weight loss. If they do not meet the weight, cholesterol, and blood pressure standards to be issued by the company, they will be charged extra fees for health insurance.

Is this plan ethical? Why or why not? Can you think of alternative ways to motivate employees to adopt healthy habits?

Individual Exercise

Your company provides diversity training programs to ensure that employees realize the importance of working with a diverse workforce, are aware of the equal employment opportunity legislation, and are capable of addressing the challenges of working in a multicultural workforce. Participation in these programs is mandatory, and employees are required to take the training as many times as needed until they pass. The training program lasts one day and is usually conducted in a nice hotel outside the workplace. Employees are paid for the time they spend in the training program. You realize that employees are not really motivated to perform well in this program. During the training, they put in the minimum level of effort, and most participants fail the exam given at the conclusion of the training program and then have to retake the training.

Using expectancy and reinforcement theories, explain why they may not be motivated to perform well in the training program. Then suggest improvements in the program so that employees are motivated to understand the material, pass the exam, and apply the material in the workplace.

Group Exercise

A Reward Allocation Decision

You are in charge of allocating a $12,000 bonus to a team that recently met an important deadline. The team was in charge of designing a Web-based product for a client. The project lasted a year. There were five people in the team. Your job is to determine each person’s share from the bonus.

Devin: Project manager . He was instrumental in securing the client, coordinating everyone’s effort, and managing relationships with the client. He put in a lot of extra hours for this project. His annual salary is $80,000. He is independently wealthy, drives an expensive car, and does not have any debt. He has worked for the company for 5 years and worked for the project from the beginning.

Alice: Technical lead . She oversaw the technical aspects of the project. She resolved many important technical issues. During the project, while some members worked extra hours, she refused to stay at the office outside regular hours. However, she was productive during regular work hours, and she was accessible via e-mail in the evenings. Her salary is $50,000. She is a single mother and has a lot of debt. She has worked for the company for 4 years and worked for the project for 8 months.

Erin: Graphic designer . She was in charge of the creative aspects of the project. She experimented with many looks, and while doing that she slowed down the entire team. Brice and Carrie were mad at her because of the many mistakes she made during the project, but the look and feel of the project eventually appealed to the client, which resulted in repeat business. Her salary is $30,000. She is single and lives to party. She has worked for the company for 2 years and worked for this project from the beginning.

Brice: Tester . He was in charge of finding the bugs in the project and ensuring that it worked. He found many bugs, but he was not very aggressive in his testing. He misunderstood many things, and many of the bugs he found were not really bugs but his misuse of the system. He had a negative attitude toward the whole project, acted very pessimistically regarding the likelihood of success, and demoralized the team. His salary is $40,000. He has accumulated a large credit card debt. He has worked for the company for 3 years and worked for the project in the last 6 months.

Carrie: Web developer . She was in charge of writing the code. She was frustrated when Erin slowed down the entire project because of her experimentation. Carrie was primarily responsible for meeting the project deadline because she put in a lot of extra work hours. Her salary is $50,000. Her mother has ongoing health issues, and Carrie needs money to help her. She worked for the company for the past year and was involved in this project for 6 months.

Advertisement

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 30 March 2023
• Volume 35 , article number  45 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Detlef Urhahne   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7709-0011 1 &
• Lisette Wijnia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7395-839X 2  

127k Accesses

24 Citations

22 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Several major theories have been established in research on motivation in education to describe, explain, and predict the direction, initiation, intensity, and persistence of learning behaviors. The most commonly cited theories of academic motivation include expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest theory, achievement goal theory, and attribution theory. To gain a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences among these prominent theories, we present an integrative framework based on an action model (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ). The basic model is deliberately parsimonious, consisting of six stages of action: the situation, the self, the goal, the action, the outcome, and the consequences. Motivational constructs from each major theory are related to these determinants in the course of action, mainly revealing differences and to a lesser extent commonalities. In the integrative model, learning outcomes represent a typical indicator of goal-directed behavior. Associated recent meta-analyses demonstrate the empirical relationship between the motivational constructs of the six central theories and academic achievement. They provide evidence for the explanatory value of each theory for students’ learning.

Similar content being viewed by others

Motivation to Learn and Achievement

The Other Half of the Story: the Role of Social Relationships and Social Contexts in the Development of Academic Motivation

Overview of the Educational Motivation Theory: A Historical Perspective

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Motivation is one of the most studied psychological constructs in educational psychology (Koenka, 2020 ). The term is derived from the Latin word “movere,” which means “to move,” as motivation provides the necessary energy to people’s actions (Eccles et al., 1998 ; T. Jansen et al., 2022 ). In the scientific literature, motivation is often defined as “a process in which goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Schunk et al., 2014 , p. 5). Research on academic motivation focuses on explaining why students behave the way they do and how this affects learning and performance (Schunk et al., 2014 ).

Several major theories have been established in research on motivation in education to describe, explain and predict the direction, initiation, intensity, and persistence of learning behaviors (cf. Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2016 ). Each theory has its own terms and concepts to designate aspects of motivated behavior, contributing to a certain inaccessibility of the field of motivation theories. In addition, motivation researchers create their own terminology, differentiate, and extend existing theoretical conceptions, making it difficult to draw precise boundaries between the models (Murphy & Alexander, 2000 ; Schunk, 2000 ). This leads to the question of whether it would be possible to consider the most important theories of academic motivation against a common background to gain a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences among these prominent theories.

In the past, several researchers have worked to provide an integrative meta-theoretical framework for classifying motivational processes. Hyland’s ( 1988 ) motivational control theory used a system of hierarchically organized control loops to explain the direction and intensity of goal-orientated behavior. Locke ( 1997 ) postulated an integrated model for theories of work motivation, starting from needs, values and personality, and environmental incentives through goal choice and mediating goal and efficacy mechanisms to performance, outcomes, satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Murphy and Alexander ( 2000 ) classified achievement motivation terms into the four domains of goal, interest, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, and self-schema. De Brabander and Martens ( 2014 ) tried to predict a person’s readiness for action primarily from positive and negative, affective and cognitive valences in their unified model of task-specific motivation. Linnenbrink-Garcia and Wormington ( 2019 ) proposed perceived competence, task values, and achievement goals as essential categories to study person-oriented motivation from an integrative perspective. Hattie et al. ( 2020 ) grouped various models of motivation around the essential components of person factors (subdivided into self, social, and cognitive factors), task attributes, goals, perceived costs, and benefits. Finally, Fong ( 2022 ) developed the motivation within changing culturalized contexts model to account for instructional, social, future-oriented, and sociocultural dynamics affecting student motivation in a pandemic context.

In this contribution, we present an integrative framework for theories of motivation in education based on an action model (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ). The action model is a further development of an idea by Urhahne ( 2008 ) to classify the most commonly cited theories focusing on academic motivation, including expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest theory, achievement goal theory, and attribution theory, into a common frame (Schunk et al., 2014 ). We begin with introducing the basic motivational model and then sort the main concepts and terms of the prominent motivation theories into the action model. Associated recent meta-analyses will illustrate the empirically documented value of each theory in explaining academic achievement.

The Basic Motivational Model

The basic motivational model in Fig. 1 shows the determinants and course of motivated action. The model is grounded on the general model of motivation by Heckhausen and Heckhausen ( 2018 , p. 4) to introduce the universal characteristics of motivated human action. Heckhausen ( 1977 ) had worked early on to organize constructs from different theories into a cognitive model of motivation. The initial model differentiated four types of expectations attached to four different stages in a sequence of events and helped group intrinsic and extrinsic incentive values of an action as well (Heckhausen, 1977 ). Later, Heckhausen and Gollwitzer ( 1987 ) extended the model to the Rubicon model of action phases to define clear boundaries between phases of motivational and volitional mindsets (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2018 ; Gollwitzer et al., 1990 ). The four phases of the Rubicon model can be described as follows: In the predecisional phase of motivation, individuals select or set a goal for action on the basis of their wishes and desires. The postdecisional phase of volition is a time of preparation and planning to translate the goal into action. This is followed by the actional phase of volition that involves the actual process of action. Once the action is completed or abandoned, the postactional phase of evaluating the outcome and its consequences has begun (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ). Since the Rubicon model depicts the entire action process from an emerging desire to the final evaluation of the action outcome, it provides a broad basis for classifying various current motivational theories.

The basic motivational model

Specifically, our model proposes that motivated behavior arises from the interaction between the person and the environment (Murray, 1938 ). In Fig. 1 , possible incentives such as the prospect of rewards and opportunities of the situation stimulate the motives, needs, wishes, and emotions of a person’s self, which come to life through generating an action goal (Dweck et al., 2003 ; Roeser & Peck, 2009 ). A person’s current goal is translated into an action at a suitable opportunity. The action is carried out, and the action’s outcome indicates whether and to what extent the intended goal has been achieved. The outcome has to be distinguished from the consequences of the action, which may consist of self- and other evaluations, rewards and punishments, achievement emotions, or effects of the outcome on long-term goals (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ). The basic model is intentionally parsimonious and somewhat reflects considerations by Hattie et al. ( 2020 ) on integrating theories of motivation that distinguish between self, goals, task (action), and costs and benefits (consequences) as major dimensions of motivation. Similarities also emerge to Locke ( 1997 ), who bases the integrative model of work motivation theories on a comparable action sequence. The specificities of each component of the basic motivational model are now explained in more detail.

The situation represents the social, cultural, and environmental context in which individuals perform motivated actions (Ford, 1992 ). Recently, there has been a trend within motivation research to place greater emphasis on situating motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ; Nolen, 2020 ; Nolen et al., 2015 ; Pekrun & Marsh, 2022 ; Wentzel & Skinner, 2022 ). Researchers want to better account for the social and cultural differences between persons (Usher, 2018 ) or take note of the embeddedness of individuals in multiple contexts (Nolen et al., 2015 ). The basic motivational model includes these extensions of current motivation theories and refers to the situatedness of motivation. The situation represents the overarching context for the complete action sequence, even though it is depicted in the basic motivational model by only one box. The situation and the person’s self are intimately interwoven, and motivation can be regarded as a result of their interaction (Roeser & Peck, 2009 ). The situation evokes motivational tendencies in the self, and the self contains experiences about the motivation to avoid or master certain situations (King & McInerney, 2014 ).

The self has not played a major role in motivation research for a long time (Weiner, 1990 ). This was partly due to Freud’s psychoanalytic theories, which recognized the id rather than the ego as the motivational driver of behavior. Moreover, behavioristic approaches that characterized motivation and learning as fully controllable from the outside also neglected mental constructs such as the self (McCombs, 1991 ). It was only with the greater prevalence of cognitive and social-cognitive theories that the self found its way back to motivational research (Weiner, 1990 ). The self is now frequently addressed in hypothetical constructs such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977 ), self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ), self-regulation (Bandura, 1988 ), self-theories (Dweck, 1999 ), ego orientation (Nicholls, 1989 ), self-based goals (Elliot et al., 2011 ), self-serving bias (McAllister, 1996 ; Miller & Ross, 1975 ), and identity (Eccles, 2009 ).

In our model, the self is the starting point of motivated action. It enables people to select goals, initiate behaviors, and sustain them until goals are accomplished (Baumeister, 2010 ; McCombs & Marzano, 1990 ; Osborne & Jones, 2011 ). Thus understood, the self is an active agent that translates a person’s basic psychological needs, motives, feelings, values, and beliefs into volitional actions (McCombs, 1991 ; Roeser & Peck, 2009 ). James ( 1999 ) referred to this part of the self as the “I-self,” the thinking and acting person itself, to distinguish it from the “Me-self,” the reflection of oneself through its physical and mental attributes. The “Me-self” is central to constructs such as self-concept, self-worth, or self-esteem (Harter, 1988 ) and remains important in depicting different motivational constructs in the course of action. However, in the basic motivational model, the “I-self” is recognized as the repository of motivational tendencies and the energizer of motivated action (King & McInerney, 2014 ).

This view of the self corresponds with insights from neuroscientific research. In Northoff’s ( 2016 ) basis model of self-specificity, the self, and in particular self-specificity, is viewed as the most fundamental function of the brain. Self-specificity and self-relatedness refers to “the degree to which internal or external stimuli are related to the self” (Hidi et al., 2019 , p. 15) and references the I-self, the self as subject and agent (Christoff et al., 2011 ). Self-specificity involves spontaneous brain activity—the resting state of the brain and independent of specific tasks or stimuli external to the brain—and is viewed as fundamental in influencing basic and higher-order functions, such as perception, the processing of reward, emotion, memory, and decision-making (Hidi et al., 2019 ; Northoff, 2016 ). Furthermore, Sui and Humphreys ( 2015 ) indicated that self-related information processing functions as an “integrative glue” that influences the integration of different stages of processing, such as linking attention to decision-making. Neuroscientific findings, therefore, seem to support the view of the self as the starting point of motivated behavior.

The goal contains the cognitive representation of an action’s anticipated incentives and consequences. Goals are the basis of all motivated behavior (cf. Elliot & Fryer, 2008 ). This view is consistent with Schunk et al. ( 2014 ), who defined motivation as a process to instigate and sustain goal-directed behavior. Cognitive theories on motivation place special emphasis on the goals that people pursue (Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ). Goals are intentional rather than impulsive, consciously or unconsciously represented, and guide an individual’s behavior. People are not always aware of the various influences on their goals. Sensations, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that affect goal pursuit are potentially experiential, but typically not consciously perceived (Bargh & Gollwitzer, 2023 ; Dweck et al., 2023 ). Goals are closely related to the person’s self. In line with Dweck et al. ( 2003 , p. 239), we assume that “contents of the self—self-defining beliefs and values—come to life through people’s goals.”

The action is carried out to either approach or avoid an anticipatory goal state (Beckmann & Heckhausen, 2018 ). Thus, motivated behavior can be directed to either approach a positive event or avoid a negative one (Elliot & Covington, 2001 ). An action can be brief or extended over a longer period. If an action goal is considered unattainable, it is devalued, and the action is directed toward other more attractive goals (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ). The action may or may not be visible to an observer. Thus, to act is to engage in any form of noticeable or indiscernible behavior, especially cognitive behavior, to reach a desired or avoid an undesired goal state.

The outcome is any physical, affective, or social result of an individual’s behavior. The action outcome is an important indicator of mastering a standard of excellence (Heckhausen, 1991 ). It is often accompanied by intrinsic valences such as feelings of self-worth, self-actualization, or appropriate accomplishment (Mitchell & Albright, 1972 ).

The consequences of an action are far more varied than the mere outcome. Vroom’s ( 1964 ) instrumentality theory considered the outcome of an action as instrumental for reaching subsequent consequences. Vroom ( 1964 ) suggested that the valence of an outcome depends on the valence of the consequences. For example, the value of school grades should depend on how the students themselves, classmates, and parents evaluate the grades achieved, what rewards, punishments, and achievement emotions are associated with the school grades, and whether the grades help achieve long-term goals such as moving up to the next grade level. The consequences of an action are often accompanied by extrinsic valences such as authority, prestige, security, promotion, or recognition (Mitchell & Albright, 1972 ).

In addition, the manifold consequences of an action affect the design of future situations and the goals that can be pursued within these situations. New possibilities to act open up and novel incentives of the situation start to interact with the self. A new action sequence, as shown in Fig. 1 , has begun.

In the following sections, we will use the action model to explain and classify six central motivation theories. Motivated action in the educational context serves to attain academic achievement, and we will make use of meta-analyses to underline what is currently known about the predictive strength of the major theoretical models. Academic achievement is certainly not the only reportable variable related to motivation. However, this visible evidence of learning is an appropriate indicator to convince individuals of the theory’s nature and value (Hattie, 2009 ). The role of affective factors in the action model is explained in more detail in the discussion.

Expectancy-Value Theory

Grounded on the research by Tolman ( 1932 ) and Lewin ( 1951 ), expectancy-value theories depict motivation as the result of the feasibility and desirability of an anticipated action (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2018 ; Schnettler et al., 2020 ). The expectancy is usually triggered by the incentives of the situation and expresses the subjective probability of the feasibility of the current action (Atkinson, 1957 ). The value indicates the desirability of an action which is determined by the incentives of the situation and the anticipated consequences of the action. In Atkinson’s ( 1957 ) achievement motivation theory, expectancy and value were assumed to be inversely related. The greater the desirability, the more difficult the feasibility of an action and vice versa. Thus, knowing the subjective probability of success was regarded as sufficient to determine the incentive value of a task. However, it turned out that the assumption of a negative correlation between expectancy and value was not tenable (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992 ). In a more modern view, expectancy and value beliefs are assumed to jointly predict achievement-related choices and performance (Eccles et al., 1983 ; Trautwein et al., 2012 ).

Situated expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ) is a modern theoretical framework for explaining and predicting achievement-related choices and behavior. Expectancy of success and subjective task values are regarded as proximal explanatory factors determined by a person’s goals and self-schemas. These, in turn, are shaped by the individual’s perception and interpretation of their developmental history and sociocultural background. Eccles and Wigfield ( 2020 ) refer to their theory as situated to highlight the importance of the underlying influences on currently held expectancy and value beliefs.

The expectancy component in the situated model (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ) is called expectation of success (Atkinson, 1957 ; Tolman, 1932 ). It represents individuals’ belief about how well they will do on an upcoming task, targeting the anticipated outcome of an action. The expectancy component of Eccles’ motivation theory shows some similarity to self-concept of ability and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977 ; Harter, 2015 ; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016 ; Schunk & Pajares, 2009 ). However, the expectation of success does not focus on the present ability (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003 ) but the future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ), and it targets the perceived chances of success rather than the perceived probability of performing an action which may lead to success (Bandura, 1977 ; Muenks et al., 2018 ).

The value component of the situated model is divided into three types of value beliefs and three types of costs that contribute to approaching or avoiding certain tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). The three value beliefs are attainment value, intrinsic value, and utility value. The three types of costs are named opportunity costs, effort costs, and emotional costs (cf. Flake et al., 2015 ; Jiang et al., 2018 ).

Attainment value represents the importance of doing well on a task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). This belief is strongly associated with the person’s self, as aspects of one’s identity are touched upon during performing an important task (Wigfield et al., 2016 ). Intrinsic value is the enjoyment a person gets from doing a task. Intrinsic value is considered a counterpart to intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2009 ) and interest in person-object theory (Krapp, 1999 ). However, enjoyment and interest should not be viewed as synonyms, making differentiations necessary (Ainley & Hidi, 2014 ; Reeve, 1989 ). Utility value is derived from the meaning of a task in achieving current and future goals (Wigfield et al., 2006 ). Accomplishing the task is only a means to an end; therefore, utility value can be considered a form of extrinsic motivation. Utility value is derived from the meaning of a task in achieving current and future goals (Wigfield et al., 2006 ) in social, educational, professional, or everyday contexts (Gaspard et al., 2015 ).

Opportunity costs arise because the time invested in a task is no longer available for other valued activities. Especially in the case of learning, conflicts with other interests threaten learners’ self-regulation, and opportunity costs can be high (Grund & Fries, 2012 ). Effort costs address the perceived effort in pursuing a task and whether it is worthwhile to finish the task at hand (Eccles, 2005 ). Emotional costs include the perceived affective consequences of participating in an academic activity, such as fear of failure or other negative emotional states (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ; Wigfield et al., 2017 ).

Central constructs of the situated expectancy-value framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ) can be placed within the basic motivational model (see Fig. 2 ). Expectation of success, a person’s subjective estimate of the chances of obtaining a particular outcome, can be represented as a directed link between self and outcome. The expectation of achieving a future outcome with a certain probability is formed in the self and is directed on the desired outcome of the prospective action. This view of expectancy of success is consistent with Skinner’s ( 1996 ) classification of agent-ends relations as individuals’ beliefs about how well they will do on an upcoming task.

Integrating situated expectancy-value theory into the basic motivational model

Figure 2 further shows that the three task values are linked to different processes in the action model. The attainment value of a task is related to the personal significance of the outcome (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). The higher the relative personal importance of the outcome, the higher the attainment value. More recent analyses show that the attainment value can be divided and measured as the importance of achievement and personal importance related to one’s identity (Gaspard et al., 2015 , 2018 , 2020 ). The self, however, is not the valued object but the importance of accomplishing a task to an individual’s identity (Perez et al., 2014 ). In classifying this construct, we chose to focus more on the importance of the outcome and less on the reference to the self. At this point, however, a different mode of presentation is also conceivable. The intrinsic value of the task is linked to the positive aspects of the action. The more pleasurable the action, the higher the intrinsic value. Eccles and Wigfield ( 2020 ) conceptualized the intrinsic value as the anticipated enjoyment of doing a particular task as well as the experienced enjoyment when performing the task. The utility value of a task is linked to the consequences. The more positive the anticipated consequences of an action, the higher the perceived usefulness. As a form of extrinsic motivation, the utility value does not result from performing the task, but from the anticipated consequences of an action to fulfill an individual’s present or future plans (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ).

The three types of costs also become relevant at different stages in the action process (see Fig. 2 ). Opportunity costs occur when a decision has been made in favor of a certain action. Alternative courses of action are ruled out as soon as a person is committed to a goal (Locke et al., 1988 ). Opportunity costs are consequently linked to the goal of the action. The person’s time and skills, which from now on are put into the pursuit of intentions, are no longer available for other activities (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). Effort costs are tied to the action itself and are based on the anticipated effort of conducting the task. Effort costs rise with the duration and intensity of an action so that the person needs to anticipate whether the desired action is worth the effort required (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). Finally, emotional costs such as anticipated fear of failure or negative emotional states are connected to the anticipated consequences of an action. These costs arise when the action does not go as desired and are therefore considered as the “perceptions of the negative emotional or psychological consequences in pursuing a task” (Rosenzweig et al., 2019 , p. 622).

Eccles’ expectancy-value framework has often been used to investigate and understand gender differences in motivational beliefs, performance, and career choices, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Lesperance et al., 2022 ; Parker et al., 2020 ; Wan et al., 2021 ). In contrast, there has been less meta-analytic research as to whether constructs of the expectancy-value model can predict academic achievement. To not preempt other theoretical conceptions, we only report here findings with a clear relation to the Eccles model.

Generally, expectations of success compared to achievement values are stronger predictors of subsequent performance (cf. Wigfield et al., 2017 ). A meta-analysis by Pinquart and Ebeling ( 2020 ) found a moderate association of expectancies for success with both current ( r = .34) and future academic achievement ( r = .41). Conversely, however, past academic performance could also predict expectancies for success ( r = .35). Credé and Phillips ( 2011 ) reported small relationships for a combination of the three task values with GPA ( r = .12) and grades ( r = .17). The relations in meta-analyses were somewhat higher when individual task values were examined. Camacho-Morles et al. ( 2021 ) found an association of r = .27 between activity-related enjoyment represented in the intrinsic value and academic performance. Barroso et al. ( 2021 ) reported a meta-analytic relationship of r = − .28 between math anxiety, as a form of emotional costs, and mathematics achievement.

Social Cognitive Theory

Within the frame of social cognitive theory, Bandura ( 1977 , 1986 , 1997 ) extended the expectancy concept from achievement motivation theory (Atkinson, 1957 ). Expectancy of success, the subjective probability of attaining a particular outcome, was differentiated by means of two beliefs (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006 ; Usher, 2016 ). Competence beliefs take effect when learners consider means and processes to accomplish certain tasks (Skinner, 1996 ). Control beliefs signify the perceived extent to which the chosen means and processes lead to the desired outcomes (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006 ).

For competence beliefs, Bandura ( 1977 ) coined the term self-efficacy to express expectations about one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to produce specific outcomes (Bandura, 1997 ; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006 ). The belief in self-efficacy is regarded as an essential condition to initiate actions leading to academic success (Klassen & Usher, 2010 ). For control beliefs, Bandura ( 1977 ) used the term outcome expectations to express the perceived relations between possible actions and anticipated outcomes. While expectancy of success sometimes involves competence beliefs, sometimes control beliefs, and sometimes both (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006 ), Bandura’s construct of self-efficacy has contributed to a necessary differentiation in the course of action and can be viewed as a central variable in research on motivation in education (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016 ).

Social cognitive theory is much broader than self-efficacy and outcome expectations and assumes a system of interacting personal, behavioral, and environmental factors (Schunk & diBenedetto, 2021 ). The idea that human agency is neither completely autonomous nor completely mechanical, but is subject to reciprocal determinism, plays a decisive role (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2016 ). Thus, personal factors such as perceived self-efficacy enable individuals to initiate and sustain behaviors that translate to effects on the environment. Thoughtful reflection on those actions and their impact feeds back to the person and can, in turn, influence their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989 ).

Figure 3 shows how the key components of social cognitive theory fit into the action model. The upper part of Fig. 3 is devoted to expectations. Self-efficacy expectations arise when the self has the necessary capabilities to organize and execute courses of action. Outcome expectations, in contrast, refer to the assessment of whether the anticipated action will lead to the desired outcome. The presentation of the two expectations is consistent with Skinner’s ( 1996 ) view in which self-efficacy expectations are referred to as agent-means relations and outcome expectations are referred to as means-ends relations. The lower part of Fig. 3 depicts the model of reciprocal interactions consisting of personal, behavioral, and environmental processes (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). Personal processes, as described by Schunk and DiBenedetto ( 2020 ) in a publication on motivation and social cognitive theory, are primarily associated with the self and the goal. The self contains information on self-efficacy, values, expectations, attribution patterns and enables social comparison processes. The goal contains standards for self-evaluations of the action’s progress. Behavioral processes such as activity selection, effort, persistence, regulation, and achievement are closely related to action and outcome of the action model. Environmental processes such as acting of social models, providing instructions, or setting standards for action stem, on the one hand, from the situation, where they set the stage for action. Environmental processes are, on the other hand, located in the consequences, where feedback, opportunities for self-evaluation, and rewards indicate an action’s success or failure (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). The listing of the individual components that make up the three interacting processes in reciprocal determinism is not always done in the same way. For example, Schunk and DiBenedetto ( 2021 ) referred to self-efficacy, cognitions, and emotions as personal factors; classroom attendance and task completion as behavioral factors; and classroom, teachers, peers, and classroom climate as environmental factors. However, this does not affect the representation of the three main classes of reciprocal determinism in the basic motivational model and opens up space for the classification of different components.

Integrating social cognitive theory into the basic motivational model

Several meta-analyses have shown that self-efficacy is moderately positively related to academic achievement (Multon et al., 1991 ; Robbins et al., 2004 ). Credé and Phillips ( 2011 ) examined several constructs of social cognitive theory based on the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 ). Control beliefs showed small positive correlations with college GPA ( r = .12) and current semester grades ( r = .14). However, of all the constructs measured, self-efficacy showed the strongest associations with GPA ( r =. 18) and grades ( r = .30). Further meta-analyses with university students supported the significant but moderate relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic achievement with correlation coefficients of r = .31 (Richardson et al., 2012 ) and r = .33 (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016 ). Sitzmann and Ely ( 2011 ) reported meta-analytic correlations of r = .18 for pre-training self-efficacy and r = .29 for self-efficacy with learning.

To further clarify the direction of the relationship, Sitzmann and Yeo ( 2013 ) conducted an insightful meta-analysis. They were able to show that self-efficacy expectations are more likely to be a product of past performance ( r = .40) than a driver of future performance ( r = .23). Talsma et al. ( 2018 ) supported these findings with a meta-analytic cross-lagged panel study. They found that prior performance exerted a stronger effect on self-efficacy (β = .21) than existing self-efficacy on subsequent performance (β = .07).

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan ( 1985 , 2000 ) is macro-theory for understanding human motivation, personality, and well-being. The theory has its roots in early explorations of the concept of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971 , 1975 ; Ryan & Deci, 2019 ). Self-determination is regarded as the basis for explaining intrinsically motivated behavior where the action is experienced as autonomous and does not rely on controls and reinforcers (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ). Self-determination theory provides a counterweight to expectancy-value theory and social cognitive theory, where the external incentives such as expected or real rewards to motivate behavior are still visible.

The overarching framework of self-determination theory encompasses six mini-theories: basic psychological needs theory, cognitive evaluation theory, organismic integration theory, causality orientations theory, goal contents theory, and relationship motivation theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). Each mini-theory explains specific motivational phenomena that have been tested empirically (Reeve, 2012 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010 ; see also Ryan et al., in press ). In the following explanations, we focus on the first three sub-theories with the highest popularity.

Basic psychological needs theory argues that humans are intrinsically motivated and experience well-being when their three innate basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied (Conesa et al., 2022 ; Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a , 2000b , 2017 , 2020 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020 ). Autonomy refers to a sense of ownership and the need for behavior to emanate from the self. Competence concerns a person’s need to succeed, grow, and feel effective in their goal pursuits (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; White, 1959 ). Finally, relatedness refers to establishing close emotional connections to others and a sense of belonging to significant others such as parents, teachers, or peers.

Cognitive evaluation theory describes how the social environment affects intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000b , 2017 , 2020 ). The mini-theory states that cognitive evaluation of external rewards impacts learners’ perception of their intrinsically motivated behavior. Rewards perceived as controlling weaken intrinsic motivation, whereas rewards providing informational feedback can strengthen acting on one’s own initiative (Deci et al., 1999 ).

Organismic integration theory focuses on the development of extrinsic motivation toward more autonomous or self-determined motivation through the process of internalization (Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). The mini-theory proposes a self-determination continuum that ranges from intrinsic motivation to amotivation, with several types of extrinsic motivation in between (Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a , 2000b , 2017 , 2020 ). The results from the meta-analysis by Howard et al. ( 2017 ) largely supported the continuum-like structure of self-determination theory. Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in activities because they are fun or interesting, whereas extrinsic motivation concerns all other reasons for engaging in activities. Four types of extrinsic motivation are distinguished, and two of these types are assumed to be higher in quality than the other two (Deci & Ryan, 2008 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000b ).

Integrated and identified regulations are considered high-quality autonomous, extrinsic motivation types characterized by volitional engagement in activities. Integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. People with integrated regulation recognize and identify with the activity’s value and find it congruent with their core values and interests (e.g., attending school because it is part of who you are; see Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). In identified regulation, people identify with or personally endorse the value of the activity (e.g., doing schoolwork to learn something from it) and, therefore, experience high degrees of volition.

The other two types of extrinsic motivation are forms of controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a , 2000b ). Introjected regulation concerns partially internalized extrinsic motivation; people’s behavior is regulated by an internal pressure to feel pride or self-esteem or to avoid feelings of anxiety, shame, or guilt. Extrinsic regulation refers to behavior regulated by externally imposed rewards and punishments, such as demands from parents or teachers.

The action model in Fig. 4 shows how core concepts of the self-determination theory fit into the course of action. The three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness are an integral part of the self (Connell & Wellborn, 1991 ). Ryan and Deci ( 2019 ) regarded the self as responsible for assimilating and aligning a person’s internal needs, drives, and emotions to the external determinants of the sociocultural situation. Intrinsic motivation is part of the action when the activity itself is experienced as exciting, interesting, or intrinsically satisfying. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is tied to an action’s consequences, as externally motivated learners seek pleasant consequences and try to avoid unpleasant ones.

Integrating self-determination theory into the basic motivational model

Forms of extrinsic motivation of the organismic integration theory can be distinguished according to the extent to which the action is integrated into the self. The more internalized the motivation, the more it becomes part of a learner’s identity (Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). In external regulation, there is no involvement of the self, as the person’s actions are entirely determined by the incentives of the situation and the action’s consequences (see Fig. 4 ). In introjected regulation, there is already some ego involvement: The self becomes involved with the consequences of one’s action to experience approval from oneself or others (Ryan & Deci, 2000a ). In identified regulation, the individual starts to value an activity consciously, and the self connects with the action. In integrated regulation, a congruence is established between the self and the self-initiated action (Ryan & Deci, 2000a ). Values and needs of the self are in balance with the autonomous and unconflicted action (see Fig. 4 ). As seen in Fig. 4 , identified and integrated regulation share overlap. In line with this presentation, the meta-analysis by Howard et al. ( 2017 ) showed that integrated regulation was hard to distinguish from intrinsic and identified regulation and called for a revision of the theory by either excluding integrated regulation or finding new ways to operationalize and conceptualize the hypothetical construct.

In line with basic psychological needs theory, the Bureau et al. ( 2022 ) meta-analysis confirmed that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is positively associated with autonomous forms of motivation. Relative weight analysis showed that the need for competence most strongly predicted intrinsic and identified motivation, followed by the needs for autonomy and social relatedness.

Several meta-analyses investigated the association between the different motivation types and academic achievement, and some of these meta-analyses only reported the association between intrinsic motivation and school performance. For example, Cerasoli et al. ( 2014 ) reported a meta-analytic correlation between intrinsic motivation and school performance of ρ = .26, whereas Richardson et al. ( 2012 ) reported a small positive correlation of r = .17 with the GPA at college or university.

Taylor et al. ( 2014 ) and Howard et al. ( 2021 ) investigated the meta-analytic correlations of the different types of motivation with school performance. Concerning the autonomous motivation types, Taylor et al. ( 2014 ) reported positive associations of intrinsic motivation ( d = .27) and identified regulation ( d = .35) with school achievement. Howard et al. ( 2021 ) also found that both identified and intrinsic motivation were equally positively associated with school performance. However, higher associations were found for self-reported (intrinsic ρ = .32, identified ρ = .29) than for objective performance measures (intrinsic ρ = .13, identified ρ = .11).

Concerning the controlled motivation types, Taylor et al. ( 2014 ) reported weak but significant negative associations with academic achievement for introjected ( d = − .12) and external regulation ( d = − .22). In contrast, Howard et al. ( 2021 ) found that introjected and external regulation were not significantly related to self-reported (introjected ρ = .07, external ρ = − .02) or objective school performance (introjected ρ = − .01, external ρ = − .03).

Interest Theory

Interest stems from the Latin word “interesse” and etymologically indicates that there is something in between. Interest connects two entities that would otherwise be separated from each other. Dewey ( 1913 ) viewed interest as an engagement and absorption of the self with an objective subject matter. In today’s person-object theory (Krapp, 2002 ), interest is similarly understood as a relational concept that builds a connection between a person and an object. Objects of interest can be very diverse and may include tangible things, people, topics, abstract ideas, tasks, events but also activities such as sports (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ). A prerequisite for interest to arise is an object in the real world and a person who has at least rudimentary but often considerable knowledge about this object (Alexander et al., 1994 ; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985 ; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017 ). Interest is a unique motivational concept (Hidi, 2006 ) that establishes a link between the objective appearance and the subjective representation of an object and triggers actions with the object of interest.

Being in a state of interest is accompanied by certain intrinsic qualities (Krapp, 2002 ). Interest-driven activities need no external incentives or rewards to be initiated and sustained. Interest is a form of intrinsic motivation that is characterized by the three components of affect, knowledge, and value (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ) and can thereby be distinguished from related constructs such as curiosity (Berlyne, 1960 ; Donnellan et al., 2022 ; Peterson & Hidi, 2019 ) or flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). The affective component of interest is typically associated with a state of pleasant tension, an optimal level of arousal, and positive feelings in the engagement with the object of interest. The cognitive component shows itself in the epistemic tendency to want to learn about the object of interest (Hidi, 1990 ). The value component becomes evident in the object’s connection to the self through the attribution of personal significance (Schiefele, 1991 ).

The most important distinction in interest theory is between long-lasting individual interest and short-term situational interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2018 ). Individual interest describes a motivational disposition toward a particular domain. It resembles a temporally stable personality trait and is an important goal of education concerning developing subject-specific and vocational interests for life-long learning (Hoff et al., 2018 ). Situational interest arises from the stimulus conditions of the environment, without any individual interest of the person having to be simultaneously present. Situational interest provides favorable motivation for learning and leads to increased short-term attention and enhanced information processing (Hidi, 2006 ). This interested turn of the person to certain topics, tasks, or activities is due to favorable characteristics of environmental stimuli such as novelty, importance, or attractiveness and is considered to be well-studied in research on text comprehension (Schraw et al., 2001 ). The change and maintenance of short-term situational interest to long-term individual interest are explicitly described in the four-phase model of interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ).

It is important to note that both individual and situational interest can be associated with a psychological state of interest (Ainley, 2017 ; Hidi, 2006 ) that arises when individuals interact with the object of interest. This state can be promoted both by the individual interest that a person brings to the situation and situational interest due to salient environmental cues (Knogler, 2017 ). In this state of interest, the two basic components of interest complement and merge with each other (Krapp, 2002 ; Renninger et al., 1992 ).

Figure 5 shows the classification of the three central constructs of interest theory in the action model. Situational interest is triggered by environmental stimuli (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ) and is thus associated with the situation. This fleeting and malleable psychological state needs support from others or through instructional design to not disappear right away (Renninger & Hidi, 2019 , 2022a ). Individual interest is a relatively enduring disposition of the person to re-engage particular content over time (Hidi & Renninger, 2006 ) and is thus a fixed characteristic of the self. This psychological predisposition is independent of the concrete content and represented as stored knowledge and stored value with relations to the self (Renninger & Hidi, 2022b ). “The self … may also provide an explanation of why interest, once triggered, is then maintained and continues to develop” (Hidi et al., 2019 , p. 28). The state of interest arises in interaction with the object of interest (Knogler, 2017 ) and is connected with the action in the model. This state of interest can be differentiated from a less-developed situational interest. While state of interest refers to an action-related, current experience (Knogler, 2017 ), less-developed situational interest marks the initial phase of a well-developed individual interest (Renninger & Hidi, 2022a ).

Integrating interest theory into the basic motivational model

Individual interest in content or subject matter is a stable predictor of academic achievement. Schiefele et al. ( 1992 ) determined a mean correlation coefficient of r = .31 between interest and academic achievement for studies in K-12 classes. In a more recent large-scale study, Lee and Stankov ( 2018 ) examined the relationship between mathematics interest and mathematics achievement in standardized tests. They found mean within-country correlations of r = .16 and r = .15 for data from PISA 2003 and PISA 2012, respectively. The effect of individual interest on academic achievement remained significant even when researchers controlled for students’ gender, nonverbal intelligence, or socio-economic status (M. Jansen et al., 2016 ). The strongest associations were found in the domains of mathematics and science (M. Jansen et al., 2016 ; Schiefele et al., 1992 ), which seem to be particularly suitable for initiating interventive measures (e.g., Crouch et al., 2018 ; Renninger et al., 2023 ). No meta-analyses are yet known for situational interest. However, Sundararajan and Adesope ( 2020 ) have analyzed how seductive details (i.e., interesting but irrelevant information) can affect learning outcomes. They found an average negative effect of g = − .33 for the relation between seductive details and recall or transfer of presented information.

Achievement Goal Theory

Anyone working as a teacher may have noticed that some students are very interested in learning something new, while others are motivated by obtaining good grades and avoiding poor ones (Eison, 1981 ; Eison et al., 1986 ). This fundamental distinction between individuals concentrating on the process of learning and individuals focusing on the external reasons for learning, can also be found in achievement goal theory (Elliot & Thrash, 2001 ). The theoretical framework has evolved steadily over four decades and is nowadays a key approach in motivation research (Elliot, 2005 ; Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020 ).

Achievement goals can be characterized by the intention to engage in competence-related behaviors (Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ). In an attempt to further develop achievement motivation theory, Nicholls ( 1984 ); Nicholls & Dweck, 1979 ) called attention to two types of achievement behavior. Task-oriented individuals pursue the goal of developing high abilities. Ego-oriented learners care deeply about proving high abilities to themselves or others and avoid demonstrating low abilities. Later, the terms mastery goal and performance goal have been established to signify this basic distinction between the two achievement goals (Ames & Archer, 1988 ; Dweck, 1986 ; Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ).

A first differentiation of the achievement goal theory has been made by including an approach and an avoidance component (Elliot, 1999 ). Research findings made clear that performance-approach goals were mainly associated with adaptive outcomes, whereas performance-avoidance goals were often associated with maladaptive outcomes (Harackiewicz et al., 2002 ). Originally, approach and avoidance components were assumed only for performance goals (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996 ). Later, researchers also addressed mastery avoidance goals, which concerns an individual’s striving to avoid mastering tasks worse than before or avoiding a decline in skills or knowledge (Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ; Van Yperen et al., 2009 ).

A second differentiation became necessary because competence-related behavior can be oriented toward very different standards (Elliot et al., 2011 ). Competencies may be reflected in whether certain tasks are fulfilled, performance is improved, or is better than the performance of others. The 3 × 2 achievement goal model by Elliot et al. ( 2011 ) incorporates the different aims of attaining competencies by differentiating between task-based, self-based, and other-based goals. Task-based goals are oriented toward the absolute demands of a task where the action’s outcome signals the attainment of an absolute standard. Self-based goals are a bit more complicated and require reference back to past performance anchored in the “Me-self” (Elliot et al., 2011 ). Competencies in terms of self-based goals refer to meeting or exceeding intrapersonal evaluation standards. Individuals with other-based goals, however, strive to meet interpersonal evaluation standards and to perform tasks better than others in a normative sense. The full 3 × 2 achievement goal model results from completely crossing absolute, intrapersonal, and interpersonal evaluation standards with approach and avoidance tendencies (Elliot et al., 2011 ).

Furthermore, the empirical distinction of performance goals into normative and appearance goals has gained a lot of popularity (Hulleman et al., 2010 ; Senko & Dawson, 2017 ; Urdan & Mestas, 2006 ). However, performance goals in the sense of seeking normative comparisons express the achievement goal concept of attaining competence much better than demonstrating ability to others (Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ; Senko, 2019 ; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020 ). Therefore, we omit the distinction between normative and appearance goals in the model representation and report their effects only in the meta-analytic part.

Figure 6 illustrates how the 3 × 2 achievement goal model (Elliot et al., 2011 ) can be placed within the basic motivational model. The arrows in the illustration point to the cognitively represented aim of the action in a particular goal state. In task-based goals, the focus is on striving for a desired outcome or avoiding not to attain a desired outcome (see Fig. 6 ). The conceptualization of task-based goals is consistent with the original idea of mastery goals of understanding the content and doing well (Ames & Archer, 1988 ). To represent mastery goals, however, a second arrow would be appropriate from the goal to the action and not just to the outcome of learning. Through the action and the continuous comparison of the current and intended outcome of the action, the individual can master the task, develop new competencies or enhance existing ones (Dweck, 1999 ; Grant & Dweck, 2003 ). We have chosen to present the 3 × 2 achievement goal model (Elliot et al., 2011 ) with task-based goals oriented to the standard of task accomplishment and with a clear focus on the outcome (cf. Senko & Tropiano, 2016 ). Also belonging to mastery goals are the newly added self-based goals (Elliot et al., 2011 ). In self-based goals, the focus is on being better or avoiding being worse than in the past or as it corresponds to one’s own potential. For this purpose, the agent’s view goes back to the abilities and skills of the self (see Fig. 6 ) before the person tries to expand their competencies or avoid the loss of competencies in the action process. Self-based goals use one’s own intraindividual trajectory as the standard for evaluation. Goal setting starts with a look at one’s past, but more important seems to be a look on one’s future potential (Elliot et al., 2015 ). In other-based goals, the course of action is dominated by the anticipated consequences (see Fig. 6 ). The aim of attaining competence is based on an interpersonal standard of being better than others or not being worse than others. This conceptualization of other-based goals coincides with the normative notion of performance goals (Dweck, 1986 ; Senko et al., 2011 ).

Integrating the 3 × 2 achievement goal framework into the basic motivational model

Several meta-analyses have accumulated evidence on the empirical relationships of achievement goals with academic achievement (Baranik et al., 2010 ; Burnette et al., 2013 ; Huang, 2012 ; Hulleman et al., 2010 ; Murayama & Elliot, 2012 ; Richardson et al., 2012 ; Van Yperen et al., 2014 ; Wirthwein et al., 2013 ). The small but significant effects are remarkably consistent across different meta-analyses (for an overview, Scherrer et al., 2020 ). Mastery approach goals correlate between r = .10 (Baranik et al., 2010 ; Huang, 2012 ; Richardson et al., 2012 ) and r = .14 (Burnette et al., 2013 ; Van Yperen et al., 2014 ) with grades and test performance. Mastery avoidance goals show small negative relationships to academic achievement with correlations ranging from r = − .07 (Van Yperen et al., 2014 ) to r = − .12 (Hulleman et al., 2010 ). The correlation coefficients of performance approach goals to academic achievement are consistently positive, ranging from r = .06 (Hulleman et al., 2010 ) to r = .16 (Burnette et al., 2013 ). However, Hulleman et al. ( 2010 ) caveated that normative performance goals ( r = .14) were associated with significantly better performance outcomes than appearance performance goals ( r = − .14). Negative associations were also found between performance avoidance goals and academic achievement with values ranging from r = − .12 (Murayama & Elliot, 2012 ; Wirthwein et al., 2013 ) to r = -.22 (Burnette et al., 2013 ).

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory addresses the issue of how individuals make causal ascriptions about events in the environment (Graham & Taylor, 2016 ). Persons act like intuitive scientists searching for the perceived causes of success and failure (Stiensmeier-Pelster & Heckhausen, 2018 ). In the attribution process, the person tries to determine the cause of an outcome. Causal inferences are drawn based on the covariation of an observed effect with its possible causes (Kelley, 1973 ). The attributional process starts when the outcome of an event is considered important, unexpected, or negative (Graham, 2020 ), which is often accompanied by happiness in case of success or sadness and frustration in case of failure (Weiner, 1986 ).

The causes are then located in a three-dimensional space. The first fundamental dimension of the attribution theory is called the locus of causality (deCharms, 1968 ; Rotter, 1966 ; Weiner, 1986 ). It can be traced back to the pioneering ideas of Heider ( 1958 ), who found that people identify either the situation or dispositional characteristics of the person as the main reasons for people’s behavior. Individuals differentiate between external causes such as task characteristics or luck and internal causes such as ability or effort. The second causal dimension of attribution theory is entitled stability over time. Weiner ( 1971 ) distinguished between stable causes of outcomes such as ability or task characteristics and unstable causes such as effort or luck. Complete crossing of the locus and stability dimensions yielded a 2 × 2 classification scheme for the perceived causes of achievement outcomes. An outcome can be attributed either internally to the person or externally to circumstances. Furthermore, the cause of the outcome can be perceived as stable or variable over time. Finally, Weiner ( 1979 ) introduced a third causal dimension, controllability, as there was still considerable variability within the cells of the suggested classification scheme. For example, mood and effort are both internal and unstable causes, but effort is more subject to volitional control than mood. By combining two levels of locus with two levels of stability and two levels of control, Weiner ( 1979 ) extended the classification scheme to its current state of eight separable causes of success and failure.

The action model in Fig. 7 depicts the basic idea of attribution theory as stated by Heider ( 1958 ) and Weiner ( 1986 ). Attributions occur at the end of an action process. These causal ascriptions are elicited when the outcome is particularly important, unexpected, or negative (Weiner, 1985 ). Depending on the outcome, the person responds with positive affect in case of success or negative affect in case of failure. This front part of Fig. 7 coincides with current illustrations of the attributional theory of motivation (cf. Graham, 2020 ). Representing causal ascriptions and classifying reasons for success or failure on causal dimensions can only be done in a simplified manner in the basic motivational model. The action outcome is further attributed to dispositions of the self, such as perceived ability or effort, or the characteristics of the situation, such as task difficulty or chance (Stiensmeier-Pelster & Heckhausen, 2018 ). After ascribing the outcome to different causal dimensions, other emotions and future achievement strivings emerge as psychological and behavioral consequences of the attribution process (Weiner, 1986 ).

Integrating attribution theory into the basic motivational model

The three causal dimensions are linked to particular psychological and academic outcomes (Graham, 2020 ). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling, Brun et al. ( 2021 ) found direct relationships between controllability and performance as well as mediated relationships of locus of causality, perceived competence, and performance. While the latter was most evident in the case of success, in the case of failure, the mediated relationship between the stability dimension, expectancy of success, and performance turned out to be significant. Further meta-analytic research showed that school children attribute success more to internal causes and failure more to external causes (Whitley Jr. & Frieze, 1985 ). This egotistic bias manifests in relating success to ability ( g = .56) and effort ( g = .29), and failure to task difficulty ( g = .45) but not to luck ( g = − .03). Fittingly, Fong et al. ( 2017 ) reported that greater internality and controllability of causal ascriptions are associated with better academic achievement among college students ( r = .14). In addition, Gordeeva et al. ( 2020 ) found that an optimistic attribution style, in which positive events are attributed to stable, internal, and global causes, is weakly related to academic performance ( r = .11). In contrast, a meta-analysis by Richardson et al. ( 2012 ) with university students did not reveal any relationships between academic performance and a pessimistic attribution style ( r =. 01).

The integrative model presented in this paper aims to provide a better overview of the most prominent motivation theories in education. The basic motivational model relies on the general model of motivation by Heckhausen and Heckhausen ( 2018 ) in its sequence of events and adopts considerations from Locke ( 1997 ) and Hattie et al. ( 2020 ) on the integration of motivation theories. The basic model allows for the classification of central motivation constructs into the course of action, highlighting in particular the differences between and within the six most popular motivation theories of our time. It makes us aware of the fact that the major theories cannot be easily merged into one another. Expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest theory, achievement goal theory, and attribution theory have all shaped our understanding of why, when, and how individuals learn (Anderman, 2020 ). In the basic motivational model, learning outcomes represent a typical indicator of goal-directed behavior. Associated recent meta-analyses demonstrate the empirical relationship between the motivational constructs of the six central theories and academic achievement. They provide evidence for the explanatory value of each theory for students’ learning.

Particular features of the basic motivational model include parsimony (Hattie et al., 2020 ) and the role of situation, self, and goal as cornerstones of a modern conception for building motivation theories (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ; Graham, 2020 ; Liem & Senko, 2022 ; Ryan & Deci, 2020 ; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2021 ; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020 ). Occam’s razor ensures to give preference to a model with fewer parameters over a more complex one. A theory with few variables in a clear, logical relationship to each other can be easily tested and can lead more quickly to unambiguous findings than a more expansive one. A basic motivational model should therefore be deliberately kept simple and specify only the decisive factors. This is what we have been trying to achieve. A closer look at current research on motivation in education shows that often only a particular set of constructs from much broader psychological theories is empirically investigated: self-efficacy expectations from social cognitive theory (Schunk & diBenedetto, 2020 ), expectancy and value beliefs from situated expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ), or causal ascriptions from attribution theory (Graham, 2020 ). Therefore, for reasons of parsimony, it seems advisable not to try to represent the entire wealth of motivation theories in an integrative model, but only their most important constructs (cf. Anderman, 2020 ; Hattie et al., 2020 ).

While achievement motivation theory posits an interplay of incentives of the situation and motives of the person as the basis for all motivated behavior (Atkinson, 1957 ), social-cognitive and sociocultural theories have significantly altered views on motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ; Graham & Weiner, 1996 ; Liem & Elliot, 2018 ; Roeser & Peck, 2009 ; Wigfield et al., 2015 ). We attempted to account for these changing views in our basic motivational model. First, rather than viewing the situation as limited to its potential incentives, we recognized the social, cultural, historical, and environmental context represented in the situation as having a significant impact on the opportunities for motivated action (Nolen, 2020 ). Second, by differentiating the person into self and goal, we could more accurately describe the process of motivated behavior. We mapped the person’s needs, motives, and wishes to the self-system (Roeser & Peck, 2009 ). Driven by its needs, motives, aspirations, and desires, the “I-self”, the consciously experiencing subject, takes influence on the selection of goals and decision-making (Dweck et al., 2003 ; Sui & Humphreys, 2015 ). The self offers the underlying reason for behavior, whereas the goal contains the concrete aim to guide behavior (cf. Elliot et al., 2011 ; Sommet & Elliot, 2017 ).

Affective factors can be active in all phases of the motivation process and take influence on the course of action. At the beginning of the action process, there is typically an awareness of contextual cues or situational stimuli that can trigger emotions such as situational interest, curiosity, or surprise (Gendolla, 1997 ; Hidi & Renninger, 2019 ). Anchored in the self are emotional dispositions of the person such as hope for success, fear of failure, or individual interest. These activating emotions, aroused by situational incentives, are energizers of the action process (Atkinson, 1957 ; Pekrun et al., 2023 ; Renninger & Bachrach, 2015 ). Having goals and being oriented toward them, is also accompanied by emotional states (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002 ). Mastery approach goals are typically associated with the presence of positive emotions and performance avoidance goals with the presence of negative emotions, whereas performance approach goals show weak relations to both positive and negative emotions (Huang, 2011 ; Korn et al., 2019 ). Research within the frame of the 3 × 2 achievement goal model could confirm these findings (Lüftenegger et al., 2016 ; Thomas, 2022 ). Positive emotions such as enjoyment and the state of interest (Hidi & Baird, 1986 ; Krapp et al., 1992 ) or negative emotions such as boredom and anger are expressed in accomplishing the action (Pekrun et al., 2023 ). Other emotions are attached to the outcome of the action: Positive outcomes are related to feelings of happiness, and negative outcomes go along with feelings of frustration and sadness (Graham, 2020 ). As consequences of the action, emotions such as pride, relief, or gratitude are prevalent in the case of success, whereas emotions such as guilt, shame, or disappointment emerge in the case of failure (Pekrun et al., 2023 ; Weiner, 1986 ). Overall, each phase of the action process is accompanied by certain affective states, which makes us aware of the close relationship between motivation and emotion.

While we have limited ourselves in this contribution to the six most common theoretical approaches (cf. Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2016 ), there are considerations of how other theories of motivation in education fit into the basic motivational model. These theories have not been researched by the same amount of scientists as the theories presented. Nevertheless, constructs such as grit, flow, and social motivation also offer suitable explanations for understanding the reasons behind human action. Grit theory (Duckworth et al., 2007 ) holds two trait-like constructs responsible for high motivation during task engagement. Meta-analytic results show that grit ( r = .19) is a consistent predictor of academic achievement with its dimension perseverance of effort ( r = .21) being more strongly related to academic achievement than the dimension consistency of interest ( r = .08; Lam & Zhou, 2022 ). In the integrative model, these two personality traits would be associated with the self and constantly impact goal pursuit (Duckworth et al., 2007 ). Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990 , 2000 ) focuses on experiencing an optimal state of simultaneous absorption, concentration, and enjoyment (Tse et al., 2022 ). As a form of intrinsic motivation (Rheinberg, 2020 ), flow experience would be assigned to the action of the integrative model. Social goals (Wentzel et al., 2018 ) are not located on an intrapersonal level but on an interpersonal level. Two basic motivational models arranged in parallel could be used to map, for example, motivation in teacher-student relationships (Wentzel, 2016 ). This would provide a simple way to represent the reciprocal interactions between the goals and actions of teachers and students.

The integrative model also facilitates an understanding of the interrelationships between different motivational constructs. Howard et al. ( 2021 ) examined in a meta-analysis the relations of different types of motivation from self-determination theory with achievement goals and self-efficacy. Intrinsic and identified motivation showed high correlations with mastery-approach goals, moderate correlations with self-efficacy, and low correlations with performance-approach goals. In contrast, introjected and external motivation showed a reserve pattern and lowly correlated with mastery-approach goals and self-efficacy but moderately with performance-approach goals. To explain these correlative patterns, it can be deduced from the integrative motivation model that intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, mastery-approach goals, and self-efficacy share a common focus on action. In contrast, introjected motivation, extrinsic motivation, and performance-approach goals share a common focus on the consequences of the action. While such post-hoc explanations are of modest scientific value, it may be possible in the future to derive and empirically test predictions about the relationships among motivational constructs based on the integrative model.

A future application of the integrative model is to combine it with neuroscientific research on motivation (Kim, 2013 ; Kim et al., 2017 ). Kim ( 2013 ) proposed a tentative neuroscientific model of motivation processes, in which—similar to the action model—motivation is viewed as a series of dynamic processes. An added value of neuroscientific research is that it can help determine if seemingly overlapping constructs from different theories are unique or similar by examining the patterns of neural activity that are triggered (Kim, 2013 ; Kim et al., 2017 ). It additionally allows for the investigation of unconscious aspects of motivation. Neuroscientific studies can further help identify the mechanism of motivational processes relating to the generation, maintenance, and regulation of motivation. The integrative model can help in identifying overlapping constructs and investigating the mechanisms of motivational processes.

Another application of the integrative model is in using a person-oriented approach to study motivation (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Wormington, 2019 ; Ratelle et al., 2007 ; Wormington & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2017 ). The person-oriented approach takes advantage of the fact that many motivational variables are often highly correlated with each other. Therefore, rather than singling out one motivational variable and analyzing its influences, it seems useful to create groups or profiles of students based on several different motivational variables. Thereby, it is recommended to use an integrative framework to relate the different motivational constructs: “A person-oriented approach can be particularly useful with an integrative theoretical perspective because it allows researchers to model the relations among motivation constructs across theoretical frameworks that may be conceptually related to one another” (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Wormington, 2019 , p. 748).

In the context of the integrative model, we have presented meta-analytic results on the relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Small to medium correlations emerged for the different types of motivation with students’ learning outcomes. Through its sequence of action stages, the integrative model suggests a causal order in which motivation is crucial for achieving academic outcomes. However, findings on the expectancy component show that the other direction may be considered equally probable, and academic achievement influences learners’ motivation (Pinquart & Ebeling, 2020 ; Sitzmann & Yeo, 2013 ). Therefore, the basic motivational model should also be understood as suggesting that prior academic achievement, cognitively represented in the self, helps shape motivation for new learning tasks.

Theories of motivation in education have increasingly expanded and differentiated over time (Schunk et al., 2014 ). Six major theories of motivation have been established (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2016 ), which we have considered against the background of an integrative action model. The framework model is intended to contribute to a deeper understanding of the major theories of academic motivation and to show the focus of each theoretical conception. In this way, difficulties of understanding with which novices try to open up the field of academic motivation theories should be overcome to a certain extent. From the placement of the theories in the basic motivational model, it becomes clear that the various approaches to motivation cannot simply be merged into one another. Nonetheless, opportunities arise from the integrative model to reflect on the meta-analytic findings regarding the interrelations of motivational theories and constructs (Howard et al., 2021 ; Huang, 2016 ) and to speculate about the underlying mechanims of the connection. Similarly, possibilities arise to debate the changing understanding of motivational constructs or to situate new theories and constructs in the course of action to clarify their meaning.

Motivation in education is a very lively field of research with a variety of approaches and ideas to develop further beyond the basic theories. This includes a stronger inclusion of situational, social, and cultural characteristics in the explanatory context (Nolen, 2020 ), the use of findings from neuroscience to objectify assumptions about motivational processes (Hidi et al., 2019 ), the interaction of motivation and emotion in learning and performance (Pekrun & Marsh, 2022 ), the analysis of motivational profiles based on a person-centered approach (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Wormington, 2019 ), or the development of motivation interventions originating in sound theoretical approaches (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016 ). To ensure that these developments in an increasingly broad field of research do not diverge, it is important to obtain a common understanding of the basic models and conceptions of motivation research. We hope to have made such a contribution by placing key theories and constructs of motivation within an integrative framework model.

Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2018). Motivation and volition in the course of action. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 272–295). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_12

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ainley, M. (2017). Interest: Knowns, unknowns, and basic processes. In P. A. O'Keefe & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 3–24). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55509-6_1

Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 205–227). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 201–252. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170694

Article   Google Scholar  

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260

Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64 , 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37–61). Springer . https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2792-6_2

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co..

Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23 (3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.488463

Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2023). The unconscious sources of motivation and goals. In M. Bong, J. Reeve, & S. Kim (Eds.), Motivation science (pp. 175–182). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197662359.003.0030

Barroso, C., Ganley, C. M., McGraw, A. L., Geer, E. A., Hart, S. A., & Daucourt, M. C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (2), 134–168. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000307

Baumeister, R. F. (2010). The self. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 139–175). Oxford University Press.

Beckmann, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Situational determinants of behavior. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 113–162). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_4

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity . McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000

Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15 (1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382

Brun, L., Pansu, P., & Dompnier, B. (2021). The role of causal attributions in determining behavioral consequences: A meta-analysis from an intrapersonal attributional perspective in achievement contexts. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (7), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000331

Bureau, J. S., Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to student motivation: A meta-analysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92 (1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426

Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (3), 655–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531

Camacho-Morles, J., Slemp, G. R., Pekrun, R., Loderer, K., Hou, H., & Oades, L. G. (2021). Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (3), 1051–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09585-3

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

Christoff, K., Cosmelli, D., Legrand, D., & Thompson, E. (2011). Specifying the self for cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15 (3), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.001

Conesa, P. J., Onandia-Hinchado, I., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Moreno, M. Á. (2022). Basic psychological needs in the classroom: A literature review in elementary and middle school students. Learning and Motivation, 79 , 101819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101819

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–78). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002

Crouch, C. H., Wisittanawat, P., Cai, M., & Renninger, K. A. (2018). Life science students’ attitudes, interest, and performance in introductory physics for life sciences (IPLS): An exploratory study. Physical Review . Physics Education Research, 14 (1), 010111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010111

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow . Harper and Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety . Jossey-Bass.

De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation. Educational Research Review, 11 , 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.001

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior . Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 (1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation . Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9

Book   Google Scholar  

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . In Perspectives in social psychology . Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49 (3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education . .

Donnellan, E., Aslan, S., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2022). How are curiosity and interest different? Naïve Bayes classification of people’s beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09622-9

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41 (10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development . Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., Dixon, M. L., & Gross, J. J. (2023). What is motivation, where does it come from, and how does it work? In M. Bong, J. Reeve, & S. Kim (Eds.), Motivation science (pp. 5–9). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197662359.003.0001

Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., & Grant-Pillow, & H. (2003). Self-systems give unique meaning to self variables. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 239–252). The Guilford Press.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). Guilford Publications.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 1017–1095). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Eison, J. A. (1981). A new instrument for assessing students’ orientations towards grades and learning. Psychological Reports, 48 , 919–924. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1981.48.3.919

Eison, J. A., Pollio, H. R., & Milton, O. (1986). Educational and personal characteristics of four different types of learning- and grade-oriented students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90012-3

Elliot, A., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2015). Potential-based achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12051

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). Guilford Publications.

Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009009018235

Elliot, A. J., & Fryer, J. W. (2008). The goal construct in psychology. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 235–250). The Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

Elliot, A. J., & Hulleman, C. S. (2017). Achievement goals. In A. J. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 43–60). The Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (3), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023952

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009057102306

Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41 , 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002

Fong, C. J. (2022). Academic motivation in a pandemic context: A conceptual review of prominent theories and an integrative model. Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2026891

Fong, C. J., Davis, C. W., Kim, Y., Kim, Y. W., Marriott, L., & Kim, S. (2017). Psychosocial factors and community college student success: A meta-analytic investigation. Review of Educational Research, 87 (2), 388–424. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653479

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs . SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361

Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Schreier, B., Häfner, I., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2015). More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (3), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000003

Gaspard, H., Jiang, Y., Piesch, H., Nagengast, B., Jia, N., Lee, J., & Bong, M. (2020). Assessing students' values and costs in three countries: Gender and age differences within countries and structural differences across countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 79 , 101836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101836

Gaspard, H., Wigfield, A., Jiang, Y., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., & Marsh, H. W. (2018). Dimensional comparisons: How academic track students’ achievements are related to their expectancy and value beliefs across multiple domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.003

Gendolla, G. H. E. (1997). Surprise in the context of achievement: The role of outcome valence and importance. Motivation and Emotion, 21 (2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486617134

Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1119

Gordeeva, T., Sheldon, K., & Sychev, O. (2020). Linking academic performance to optimistic attributional style: Attributions following positive events matter most. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35 (1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00414-y

Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.cedpsych.2020.101861

Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2016). Attribution theory and motivation in school. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 11–33). Routledge.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–84). Macmillan Library Reference Usa; Prentice Hall International.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541

Grund, A., & Fries, S. (2012). Motivational interference in study–leisure conflicts: How opportunity costs affect the self-regulation of university students. Educational Psychology, 32 (5), 589–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.674005

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (3), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638

Harter, S. (1988). The construction and conservation of the self: James and Cooley revisited. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 43–70). Springer.

Harter, S. (2015). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations . Guilford Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Routledge.

Hattie, J., Hodis, F. A., & Kang, S. H. K. (2020). Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101865

Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1 (4), 283–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992538

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action . Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75961-1

Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11 (2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338

Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Motivation and action: Introduction and overview. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 1–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_1

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-004

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60 (4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170506

Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1 (2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001

Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—a neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10 (2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1002_3

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Hidi, S. E., & Renninger, K. A. (2019). Interest development and its relation to curiosity: Needed neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, 31 (4), 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09491-3

Hidi, S. E., Renninger, K. A., & Northoff, G. (2019). The educational benefits of self-related information processing. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 15–35). Cambridge University Press.

Hoff, K. A., Briley, D. A., Wee, C. J. M., & Rounds, J. (2018). Normative changes in interests from adolescence to adulthood: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (4), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000140

Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17 , 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16 (6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (12), 1346–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000125

Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9155-x

Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026223

Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19 , 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.002

Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136 (3), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947

Hyland, M. E. (1988). Motivational control theory: An integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (4), 642–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.642

James, W. (1999). The self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 69–77). Psychology Press (Reprinted from Psychology , by W. James, 1892, Fawcett).

Jansen, M., Lüdtke, O., & Schroeders, U. (2016). Evidence for a positive relationship between interest and achievement: Examining between-person and within-person variation in five domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46 , 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.004

Jansen, T., Meyer, J., Wigfield, A., & Möller, J. (2022). Which student and instructional variables are most strongly related to academic motivation in K-12 education? A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (1-2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/BUL0000354

Jiang, Y., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Gaspard, H. (2018). An expectancy-value-cost approach in predicting adolescent students’ academic motivation and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54 , 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.005

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28 (2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225

Kim, S.-I. (2013). Neuroscientific model of motivational process. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 , 98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00098

Kim, S.-I., Reeve, J., & Bong, M. (2017). Introduction to motivational neuroscience. In S.-I. Kim, J. Reeve, & M. Bong (Eds.), Recent developments in neuroscience research on human motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 1–19). . https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320160000019022

King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). Culture’s consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross-cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist, 49 (3), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.926813

Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16A, pp. 1–33). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A004

Knogler, M. (2017). Situational interest: A proposal to enhance conceptual clarity. In P. A. O'Keefe & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 109–124). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55509-6_6

Koenka, A. C. (2020). Academic motivation theories revisited: An interactive dialog between motivation scholars on recent contributions, underexplored issues, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101831

Korn, R. M., Elliot, A. J., & Daumiller, M. (2019). Back to the roots: The 2 × 2 standpoints and standards achievement goal model. Learning and Individual Differences, 72 , 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.009

Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14 (1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173109

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12 (4), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00011-1

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lam, K. K. L., & Zhou, M. (2022). Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114 (3), 597–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000699

Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86 (2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832

Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65 , 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009

Lesperance, K., Hofer, S., Retelsdorf, J., & Holzberger, D. (2022). Reducing gender differences in student motivational-affective factors: A meta-analysis of school-based interventions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 1502–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12512

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harpers.

Liem, G. A. D., & Elliot, A. J. (2018). Sociocultural influences on achievement goal adoption and regulation. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerny (Eds.), Big Theories Revisited 2 (pp. 41–68). Information Age Publishing.

Liem, G. A. D., & Senko, C. (2022). Goal complexes: A new approach to studying the coordination, consequences, and social contexts of pursuing multiple goals. Educational Psychology Review, 34 , 2167–2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09701-5

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37 (2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_2

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Patall, E. A. (2016). Motivation. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 91–103). Routledge.

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Wormington, S. V. (2019). An integrative perspective for studying motivation in relation to engagement and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 739–758). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.031

Locke, E. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375–412). JAI Press.

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 13 (1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258352

Lüftenegger, M., Klug, J., Harrer, K., Langer, M., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2016). Students’ achievement goals, learning-related emotions and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00603

McAllister, H. A. (1996). Self-serving bias in the classroom: Who shows it? Who knows it? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (1), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.123

McCombs, B. L. (1991). Overview: Where have we been and where are we going in understanding human motivation? Journal of Experimental Education, 60 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1991.10806576

McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_5

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82 (2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486

Mitchell, T. R., & Albright, D. W. (1972). Expectancy theory predictions of the satisfaction, effort, performance, and retention of naval aviation officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90033-5

Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2018). I can do this! The development and calibration of children’s expectations for success and competence beliefs. Developmental Review, 48 , 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.04.001

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38 , 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30

Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance relation: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138 (6), 1035–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028324

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality . Oxford University Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91 (3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education . Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1979). A definition of achievement motivation . Unpublished manuscript,. University of Illinois.

Nolen, S. B. (2020). A situative turn in the conversation on motivation theories. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101866

Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50 (3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075399

Northoff, G. (2016). Is the self a higher-order or fundamental function of the brain? The “basis model of self-specificity” and its encoding by the brain’s spontaneous activity. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7 (1–4), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1111868

Osborne, J. W., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (1), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9151-1

Parker, P. D., Van Zanden, B., Marsh, H. W., Owen, K., Duineveld, J. J., & Noetel, M. (2020). The intersection of gender, social class, and cultural context: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (1), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09493-1

Pekrun, R., & Marsh, H. W. (2022). Research on situated motivation and emotion: Progress and open problems. Learning and Instruction, 81 , 101664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101664

Pekrun, R., Marsh, H. W., Elliot, A. J., Stockinger, K., Perry, R. P., Vogl, E., Goetz, T., van Tilburg, W. A. P., Lüdtke, O., & Vispoel, W. P. (2023). A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124 (1), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000448

Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (1), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034027

Peterson, E. G., & Hidi, S. (2019). Curiosity and interest: Current perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 31 (4), 781–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09513-0

Pinquart, M., & Ebeling, M. (2020). Students’ expected and actual academic achievement – A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 100 , 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101524

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t09161-000

Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (4), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734

Reeve, J. (1989). The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 13 (2), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992956

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7

Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50 (1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.999920

Renninger, K. A., Gantt, A. L., & Lipman, A. L. (2023). Comprehension of mathematical argumentation: What is the role of interest? ZDM-Mathematics Education, 55 , 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01445-4

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interest in learning and development . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2019). Interest development and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 265–290). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.013

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2022a). Interest: A unique affective and cognitive motivational variable that develops. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 9 , pp. 179–239). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2021.12.004

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2022b). Interest development, self-related information processing, and practice. Theory into Practice, 61 (1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1932159

Renninger, K. A., & Wozniak, R. H. (1985). Effect of interest on attentional shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21 (4), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.4.624

Rheinberg, F. (2020). Intrinsic motivation and flow. Motivation . Science, 6 (3), 199–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000165

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138 (2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness: Self, motivation, and self-regulated learning in contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44 (2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832376

Rosenzweig, E. Q., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Expectancy-value theory and its relevance for student motivation and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 617–644). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.026

Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). The role of interest in learning: Knowledge acquisition at the intersection of situational and individual interest. In P. A. O'Keefe & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 69–93). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55509-6_4

Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2018). How individual interest influences situational interest and how both are related to knowledge acquisition: A microanalytical investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 111 (5), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1310710

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). 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

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 111–156). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Ryan, R. M., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., Ryan, W. S., Stewards, B. A., & Bradshaw, E. L. (in press). We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychological Bulletin .

Scherrer, V., Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., & Elliot, A. J. (2020). Development of achievement goals and their relation to academic interest and achievement in adolescence: A review of the literature and two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology, 56 (4), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000898

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_5

Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183–212). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schnettler, T., Bobe, J., Scheunemann, A., Fries, S., & Grunschel, C. (2020). Is it still worth it? Applying expectancy-value theory to investigate the intraindividual motivational process of forming intentions to drop out from university. Motivation and Emotion, 44 , 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09822-w

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016619705184

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Coming to terms with motivation constructs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 , 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1018

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 34–53). Routledge.

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60 , 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Self-efficacy and human motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 153–179). Elsevier Academic Press.

Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th ed.). Pearson.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 349–367). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Senko, C. (2019). When do mastery and performance goals facilitate academic achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59 , 101795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101795

Senko, C., & Dawson, B. (2017). Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (4), 574–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000160

Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646

Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orientations, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (8), 1178–1192. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114

Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777

Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66 (3), 531–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12035

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.549

Sommet, N., & Elliot, A. J. (2017). Achievement goals, reasons for goal pursuit, and achievement goal complexes as predictors of beneficial outcomes: Is the influence of goals reducible to reasons? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (8), 1141–1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000199

Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2018). Causal attribution of behavior and achievement. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 623–678). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_15

Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). The integrative self: How self-reference integrates perception and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19 (12), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.015

Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (3), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4

Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61 , 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015

Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Koestner, R. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002

Thomas, C. L. (2022). Predicting test anxiety using the 3 × 2 achievement goal model. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 10 (2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2020.1816237

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men . Century/Random House UK.

Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470

Tse, D. C. K., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2022). Flow experiences across adulthood: Preliminary findings on the continuity hypothesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23 , 2517–2540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00514-5

Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101862

Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.354

Urhahne, D. (2008). Sieben Arten der Lernmotivation: Ein Überblick über zentrale Forschungskonzepte [Seven kinds of learning motivation. An overview of central concepts of research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59 (3), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.59.3.150

Usher, E. L. (2016). Personal capability beliefs. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 146–159). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53 (2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1442220

Van Yperen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of self-reported achievement goals and nonself-report performance across three achievement domains (work, sports, and education). PLoS ONE, 9 (4), e93594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093594

Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Anseel, F. (2009). The influence of mastery-avoidance goals on performance improvement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (6), 932–943. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.590

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan, S. A. Karabenick, & S. A. (Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16A, pp. 105–165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007

Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44 , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . Wiley.

Wan, S., Lauermann, F., Bailey, D. H., & Eccles, J. S. (2021). When do students begin to think that one has to be either a “math person” or a “language person”? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (9), 867–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000340

Weiner, B. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure . General Learning Press.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548–573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.616

Wentzel, K. R. (2016). Teacher-student relationships. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 211–230). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2018). Emotional support, social goals, and classroom behavior: A multilevel, multisite study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (5), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000239

Wentzel, K. R., & Skinner, E. (2022). The other half of the story: The role of social relationships and social contexts in the development of academic motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 1865–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09713-1

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66 (5), 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934

Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Frieze, I. H. (1985). Children’s causal attributions for success and failure in achievement settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (5), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.608

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12 (3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 657–700). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 933–1002). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Achievement values: Interactions, interventions, and future directions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 116–134). The Guilford Press.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Wirthwein, L., Sparfeldt, J. R., Pinquart, M., Wegerer, J., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Achievement goals and academic achievement: A closer look at moderating factors. Educational Research Review, 10 , 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.07.001

Wormington, S. V., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2017). A new look at multiple goal pursuit: The promise of a person-centered approach. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (3), 407–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9358-2

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Passau, Innstr. 25, 94030, Passau, Germany

Detlef Urhahne

Open Universiteit, Heerlen, the Netherlands

Lisette Wijnia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Detlef Urhahne .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Urhahne, D., Wijnia, L. Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework. Educ Psychol Rev 35 , 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09767-9

Download citation

Accepted : 16 March 2023

Published : 30 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09767-9

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

• Motivation to learn
• Action model
• Academic achievement
• Meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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.

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.

Daring Leadership Institute: a groundbreaking partnership that amplifies Brené Brown's empirically based, courage-building curriculum with BetterUp’s human transformation platform.

What is Coaching?

Types of Coaching

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

Find your coach

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.

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

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.

You need more than a quote to motivate a team

How building trust is the true secret to motivating sales teams, maslow’s hierarchy of needs: a recipe for life fulfillment, 5 real-time recognition tactics that drive engagement and retention, 50 teamwork quotes to motivate and inspire your team, how to use motivational interview questions to drive change, the ultimate guide to motivating a team — and why it matters, 19 ways to get motivated, work the motivation: 10 ways to keep your team inspired, using drive reduction theory to set & achieve your goals, 5 self-actualization examples: unlock maslow’s hierarchy of needs, how to handle a lack of motivation at work, watch your company language (it shapes company culture), extrinsic motivation: what is it, and can it lead to fulfillment, 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
• ROI of BetterUp
• What is coaching?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Personal Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Briefing
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Human Behavior Theory of Motivation: Exploring Key Concepts and Applications

Motivation, the driving force behind our actions, has captivated researchers and philosophers for centuries, leading to a rich tapestry of theories that seek to unravel its complexities and harness its power. From the ancient Greeks pondering the nature of human desires to modern psychologists delving into the intricacies of our minds, the quest to understand what propels us forward has been a constant theme in human inquiry.

But why does motivation matter so much? Well, imagine a world where no one felt compelled to do anything. Sounds pretty bleak, right? Motivation is the spark that ignites our passions, fuels our ambitions, and keeps us going when the going gets tough. It’s the secret sauce that turns dreams into reality and transforms couch potatoes into marathon runners.

The Motivation Melting Pot: A Brief History

The study of motivation isn’t just some newfangled trend. It’s been brewing in the minds of great thinkers for ages. Ancient philosophers like Aristotle pondered the nature of human desires, while early psychologists like William James explored the concept of instincts as motivators. Fast forward to the 20th century, and we see a veritable explosion of theories, each trying to crack the code of human motivation.

Remember those old cartoons where a character had an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other? Well, that’s not too far off from how some early theories viewed motivation – as a battle between opposing forces. But as our understanding grew, so did the complexity of our models. We started to realize that motivation isn’t just about good versus evil or pleasure versus pain. It’s a multifaceted gem, with each facet reflecting a different aspect of our psyche.

Why Should We Care? The Significance of Motivation Across Fields

Now, you might be thinking, “Sure, motivation sounds interesting, but why should I bother learning about it?” Well, buckle up, because understanding motivation is like having a Swiss Army knife for life. It’s not just for psychologists or self-help gurus – it’s a tool that can be applied in virtually every field imaginable.

In the workplace, motivation is the difference between a team that’s firing on all cylinders and one that’s just going through the motions. Motivation in organizational behavior can make or break a company’s success. In education, it’s the key to unlocking a student’s potential and fostering a love for learning. In healthcare, understanding motivation can be the secret ingredient in helping patients stick to treatment plans and make lasting lifestyle changes.

Even in fields you might not expect, motivation plays a crucial role. Take sports, for instance. Sure, physical prowess is important, but the mental game – the motivation to push harder, train longer, and never give up – that’s what separates the champions from the rest. Or consider art and creativity. The most technically skilled artist in the world won’t produce masterpieces without the motivation to express themselves and push boundaries.

Peeling Back the Layers: Fundamental Concepts in Motivation Theory

Now that we’ve established why motivation matters, let’s dive into the meat and potatoes of motivation theory. Don’t worry, I promise it’s more exciting than it sounds!

First up, we have the classic showdown: intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Imagine you’re at a buffet (bear with me here). Intrinsic motivation is like eating because you genuinely enjoy the taste of the food. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is more like eating because your mom promised you dessert if you finished your vegetables. Both can get the job done, but they operate in very different ways.

Next, we have drive theory and homeostasis. This is the idea that we’re motivated to maintain a balance in our bodies and minds. Think of it like a thermostat – when things get too hot or too cold, we’re motivated to take action to get back to our comfort zone. It’s why we eat when we’re hungry, sleep when we’re tired, and binge-watch our favorite show when we’re stressed (okay, maybe that last one isn’t exactly homeostasis, but you get the idea).

Then there’s the granddaddy of motivation theories – Maslow’s Theory of Human Behavior: A Comprehensive Exploration of Needs and Motivation . Picture a pyramid, with basic needs like food and shelter at the bottom, and lofty goals like self-actualization at the top. Maslow’s theory suggests that we’re motivated to fulfill these needs in order, starting from the bottom. It’s a bit like a video game – you can’t unlock the next level until you’ve completed the current one.

Last but not least, we have cognitive evaluation theory. This fancy-sounding concept is actually pretty simple: it’s all about how we perceive and interpret events, and how that affects our motivation. It’s the reason why one person might see a challenging task as an exciting opportunity, while another sees it as a daunting obstacle.

The Big Leagues: Major Theories in Human Behavior Motivation

Now that we’ve covered the basics, let’s step up to the major leagues of motivation theories. These are the heavy hitters that have shaped our understanding of what makes humans tick.

First up is self-determination theory. This theory is all about autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It’s like a motivational triple threat – we’re driven by our need to feel in control of our lives, to feel capable, and to connect with others. It’s why micromanaging bosses and helicopter parents often backfire – they squash our sense of autonomy and, in turn, our motivation.

Next, we have expectancy theory. This one’s a bit like a motivational math equation: Motivation = Expectancy x Value. In other words, we’re motivated when we believe we can achieve something (expectancy) and we think it’s worth achieving (value). It’s why we might be more motivated to study for an exam we think we can ace in a subject we love, compared to one we’re struggling with in a subject we find boring.

Goal-setting theory is another big player in the motivation game. This theory suggests that specific, challenging (but achievable) goals are more motivating than vague or easy ones. It’s the difference between saying “I want to get in shape” and “I’m going to run a 5K in three months.” The specific goal gives you something concrete to work towards and measure your progress against.

Equity theory brings fairness into the mix. It’s based on the idea that we’re motivated by a sense of fairness in our relationships and interactions. If we feel we’re putting in more effort than we’re getting back, or vice versa, it can seriously impact our motivation. It’s why perceived favoritism in the workplace can be such a motivation killer.

Last but not least, we have reinforcement theory. This one’s all about consequences – positive reinforcement (rewards) increases the likelihood of a behavior, while negative reinforcement (removing something unpleasant) can also motivate us. It’s the theory behind everything from gold stars in elementary school to employee bonuses in the corporate world.

The Biology and Psychology of Motivation: What Makes Us Tick?

Now, let’s get a little nerdy and dive into the biological and psychological factors that influence motivation. Don’t worry, I promise to keep it interesting – no dry textbook stuff here!

First up, the neurological basis of motivation. Our brains are like incredibly complex motivational machines, with different areas lighting up like a Christmas tree when we’re motivated. The dopamine system, for instance, plays a huge role in reward and motivation. It’s why that first bite of chocolate feels so good, or why getting likes on social media can be so addictive. Motor behavior , the science behind our movements, is intricately linked to our motivational systems, showing how our inner drive manifests in physical actions.

But it’s not all about brain chemistry. Emotions play a massive role in motivation too. Ever notice how you’re more motivated to hit the gym when you’re feeling confident and energized, compared to when you’re feeling down in the dumps? That’s the emotional component of motivation at work. Our feelings can either fuel our motivation or throw a wet blanket on it.

Personality traits also have a big impact on how we experience and express motivation. Some people are naturally more driven and ambitious, while others are more laid-back. It’s like we all have our own unique motivational fingerprint. Noreen’s Theory: How Our Behavior is Motivated by Internal and External Factors delves into this interplay between our inner drives and external influences.

And let’s not forget about culture! Our motivations are shaped by the values and norms of the society we live in. What’s considered a worthy goal in one culture might be seen as frivolous in another. It’s why understanding cultural differences is so crucial in our increasingly globalized world.

Putting Theory into Practice: Real-World Applications

Alright, enough with the theory – let’s talk about how all this motivational mumbo-jumbo actually applies in the real world.

In the workplace, understanding motivation can be the difference between a thriving, engaged workforce and a bunch of clock-watchers counting down to the weekend. Incentives drive behavior , but it’s not just about dangling a carrot (or a bonus check) in front of employees. It’s about creating an environment that satisfies those intrinsic motivators we talked about earlier – autonomy, mastery, and purpose. It’s why companies like Google famously allow employees to spend 20% of their time on personal projects – it taps into their intrinsic motivation and often leads to innovative ideas.

In educational settings, motivation is the secret sauce that can turn reluctant learners into passionate scholars. It’s about more than just grades – it’s about fostering curiosity, creating a sense of competence, and helping students see the relevance of what they’re learning to their lives. Behavior momentum , a concept that explains how past successes can fuel future motivation, is particularly relevant in educational contexts.

Sports psychology is another field where motivation theories are put to the test. Athletes need to maintain high levels of motivation through grueling training sessions, setbacks, and high-pressure competitions. Techniques like visualization, goal-setting, and positive self-talk are all rooted in motivational theory.

In healthcare, motivation can literally be a matter of life and death. Getting patients to stick to treatment plans, make lifestyle changes, or engage in rehabilitation requires a deep understanding of what motivates people to take care of their health. It’s not just about telling people what to do – it’s about helping them find their own reasons for wanting to get healthy.

The Flip Side: Challenges and Critiques of Motivation Theories

Now, before you go thinking that motivation theories have all the answers, let’s take a step back and look at some of the challenges and critiques.

One major limitation of current motivational models is that they often struggle to account for individual differences. What motivates one person might completely demotivate another. It’s like trying to find a one-size-fits-all hat – it might work for some, but it’s going to be too big for some and too small for others.

There’s also the question of how stable motivation is over time. We’ve all had those days where we wake up raring to go, and others where we can barely summon the energy to get out of bed. How do we account for these fluctuations in our motivational theories?

Ethical considerations come into play when we start talking about motivational interventions. Is it okay to manipulate people’s motivations, even if it’s for their own good? Where do we draw the line between motivation and coercion? These are thorny questions that don’t have easy answers.

Attributing the cause of behavior is a complex process, and our current theories might not capture all the nuances. For instance, how do we account for unconscious motivations that we’re not even aware of? Or how do we factor in the role of chance and circumstance in shaping our motivations?

The Road Ahead: Future Directions in Motivation Research

As we look to the future, there are exciting new frontiers in motivation research. Advances in neuroscience are giving us unprecedented insights into the brain mechanisms behind motivation. We’re starting to understand how different motivational systems interact and influence each other.

There’s also growing interest in how technology can be used to enhance motivation. From fitness trackers that gamify exercise to apps that help people stick to their goals, we’re seeing new ways to apply motivational theories in the digital age.

Another promising area is the integration of motivation research with other fields like behavioral economics and artificial intelligence. These interdisciplinary approaches could lead to more comprehensive and nuanced models of human motivation.

Wrapping It Up: The Power of Understanding Motivation

As we come to the end of our motivational journey, let’s recap what we’ve learned. We’ve explored the fundamental concepts of motivation, from intrinsic and extrinsic drivers to the hierarchy of needs. We’ve delved into major theories like self-determination theory and goal-setting theory. We’ve looked at the biological and psychological factors that influence motivation, and we’ve seen how these theories are applied in various real-world settings.

But here’s the thing – no single theory can fully capture the complexity of human motivation. It’s like trying to describe a rainbow with just one color. That’s why it’s so important to integrate multiple theories for a comprehensive understanding. It’s not about finding the one “right” theory, but about having a toolbox of different approaches that we can draw from depending on the situation.

So, what does all this mean for you? Well, understanding motivation isn’t just an academic exercise – it has real, practical implications for our lives. Whether you’re trying to motivate yourself to stick to a new habit, inspire your team at work, or help a friend achieve their goals, having a grasp of motivational theories can give you valuable insights and strategies.

Human behavior theories in social work and human behavior theory in social work practice demonstrate how understanding motivation can enhance client outcomes and improve social interventions. These applications show the far-reaching impact of motivational understanding beyond individual self-improvement.

But don’t just take my word for it. I encourage you to explore these theories further, to experiment with different motivational strategies in your own life, and to keep an open mind about what drives you and those around you. After all, motivation is a deeply personal thing – what works for one person might not work for another.

Remember, motivation isn’t just about achieving goals or being productive. It’s about living a life that feels meaningful and fulfilling to you. So, as you continue on your own motivational journey, keep asking yourself: What truly motivates me? What makes me feel alive and engaged? What kind of life do I want to create for myself?

Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation: What Drives Behavior? provides a framework for understanding these deeper questions of human motivation and fulfillment. By exploring these theories and applying them to our lives, we can unlock new levels of understanding about ourselves and others.

In the end, understanding motivation is about understanding what it means to be human. It’s about our desires, our fears, our dreams, and our drive to grow and achieve. So here’s to motivation – may you find what drives you, and may it lead you to a life of purpose, growth, and fulfillment.

References:

1. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

2. 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.

3. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

4. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.

5. Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

6. 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.

7. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.

8. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.

10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Similar Posts

Behavioral Support: Effective Strategies for Promoting Positive Change

For individuals struggling with challenging behaviors, the path to positive change can often feel like an uphill battle—but with the right strategies and support, it’s a journey worth taking. Behavioral support, a comprehensive approach to understanding and modifying behavior, offers hope and practical solutions for those seeking to improve their lives or help others do…

End Behavior Practice Problems: Mastering Function Limits and Graphing Skills

As the graph of a function stretches into infinity, its secrets unveil themselves through the captivating lens of end behavior – a powerful tool for unraveling the mysteries of limits and shaping the curves that define our mathematical world. This fascinating concept, often overlooked by casual observers, holds the key to understanding the very essence…

Mental Behavior: Understanding Cognitive Patterns and Emotional Responses

Our minds, a kaleidoscope of thoughts and emotions, shape the very essence of our being, guiding our actions and interactions in the complex tapestry of life. This intricate interplay of cognitive processes and emotional responses forms the foundation of what we call mental behavior. It’s the invisible force that drives our decisions, colors our perceptions,…

Attributions and Behavior: How Our Explanations Shape Our Actions

The explanations we craft for the world around us, like invisible threads, guide our every action and shape our destiny, often without our conscious awareness. These explanations, known as attributions, are the building blocks of our understanding of the world and our place in it. They’re the silent narrators of our life stories, whispering interpretations…

Irrational Behavior: Exploring the Psychology Behind Our Illogical Choices

From choosing the wrong partner to investing in a doomed stock, our lives are peppered with irrational decisions that defy logic and lead us down unexpected paths. We’ve all been there, scratching our heads in bewilderment at our own choices. But why do we do it? What drives us to make decisions that seem so…

Self-Defeating Behavior: Breaking Free from Negative Patterns

In the shadows of our own minds, we often find ourselves entangled in a web of self-sabotaging thoughts and behaviors, unaware of the profound impact they have on our lives. It’s a peculiar dance we do with ourselves, stepping on our own toes and wondering why we keep stumbling. But fear not, dear reader, for…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory) argues that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist in two different ways, each with its own set of factors.
• This contradicts the traditional view of job satisfaction, which posits that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are interdependent.
• Herzberg and his collaborators investigated fourteen factors relating to job satisfaction in their original study, classifying them as either hygienic or motivational factors. Motivation factors increase job satisfaction, while hygiene factors prevent job dissatisfaction.
• Although largely replaced by newer theories of motivation in academia, the two-factor motivation theory continues to influence popular management theory and the methodology of studies in some areas of the world.

What Is Two-Factor Theory?

The two-factor motivation theory, otherwise known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory or dual-factor theory, argues that there are separate sets of mutually exclusive factors in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Generally, these factors encourage job satisfaction and relate to self-growth and self-actualization.

The two-factor motivation theory has become one of the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in job satisfaction research (Dion, 2006).

To Herzberg, motivators ensured job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene factors spawned job dissatisfaction.

The major mid-twentieth century researchers in motivation — Maslow (1954), Herzberg, Vroom (1964), Alderfer (1972), McCalland (1961), and Locke et al. (1981) — devised research which Basset-Jones and Lloyd argue can be divided into content and process theories of motivation.

Content theories, such as Herzberg et al. (1959), assume a complex interaction between internal and external factors and explore how people respond to different internal and external stimuli.

Meanwhile, process theories, such as that of Vroom (1964), consider how factors internal to the person lead to different behaviors.

Frederick Herzberg’s Approach

Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their book Motivation to Work .

Influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Jones, 2011), Herzberg concluded that satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same continuum and conducted a series of studies where he attempted to determine what factors in work environments cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and duration of impact (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail, situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs cited extrinsic factors .

Herzberg (1959) considers two factors that can add to or detract from job satisfaction: hygiene and motivation.

While hygiene factors are related to “the need to avoid unpleasantness,” motivation factors more directly lead to job satisfaction because of “the need of the individual for self-growth and self-actualization.”

The traditional view of job satisfaction entails that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum; employees who lack reasons to be satisfied with their jobs must be dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

However, hygiene and motivational factors are distinct. To Herzberg, the opposite of job satisfaction was not job dissatisfaction but no job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).

These two separate continua of job satisfaction and job satisfaction support the possibility that someone can be content with certain aspects of their jobs but discontent with others.

Perhaps more pessimistically, this also implies that simply eliminating “dissatisfiers” would not necessarily lead to job satisfaction as much as placation (motivational concepts).

These so-called “satisfiers” (motivational factors) and “dissatisfiers” (a lack of hygiene factors) are dynamic, constantly interacting, highly subject to change, and relative to the employee (Misener and Cox, 2001).

Certain satisfiers or dissatisfiers may be more important than others depending on personal and professional contexts.

According to Herzberg, whether or not dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers predict whether employees find their job interesting and enjoyable and their likelihood of remaining at their current jobs (Kacel et al., 2005).

Motivation Factors

Herzberg et al. (1959) argue that motivation factors are necessary to improve job satisfaction.

According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth and self-actualization (Herzberg, 1966).

In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of which there are notable examples:

Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative advancement (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done job (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor job-related decision-making (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors

Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which] operates to remove health hazards from the environment” (1959; Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function in “the need to avoid unpleasantness” (Herzberg, 1966).

Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies, and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions:

This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times.

• Salary : Salary includes wage or salary increases and negative unfulfilled expectations of wage or salary increases (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and communication may lead to job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job.

Poor leadership and management can decrease job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and safety (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Empirical studies of job satisfaction in nurses, such as those of Kacel et al. (2005) and Jones (2011), support Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory by asserting that hygiene factors are less important to job satisfaction, while motivational factors lead to job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

In one such study, Kacel et al. (2005) used Herzberg’s theory as a framework for qualitatively studying job satisfaction among 147 nurse practitioners in the Midwest of the United States.

Kacel et al. noticed a Koelbel, Fuller, and Misener (1991) study that suggested that nurses often become nurse practitioners because of dissatisfaction with their staff nursing position and a desire to use their abilities to their fullest potential — to fulfill what Herzberg would call motivation factors.

In particular, nurses become nurse practitioners, according to Kacel, because of the role’s challenge and autonomy (2005).

The researchers devised the Misener Nurse Practitioner Job Satisfaction Scale (Misner and Cox, 2001). This is a 44-item questionnaire that focuses on six of Herzberg’s motivational and hygiene factors: collegiality, autonomy, professional social and community interaction, professional growth, time, and benefits and compensation (Kace et al., 2005).

The study described which factors were the most strongly associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction and found that salary and administrative policies, in particular, influence nurses’ job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).

Mid-Level Manager Job Satisfaction in India

Although heavily critiqued, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory still greatly influences current methodology, particularly in several modern Asian workplace studies (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Vijayakumar and Saxena (2015) conducted one such study in India. Attempting to address the controversy over whether monetary compensation motivates poor hygiene, the researchers used a questionnaire to ask 144 mid-level managers about what factors influenced their job satisfaction most.

Ultimately, the researchers concluded that job satisfaction was determined most by job content, organizational context, and rewards and working conditions, with monetary compensation as a separate factor altogether (Vijayakumar and Saxena, 2015).

PLAY Heuristics and Herzberg’s Theory Applied to Video Games

Straat and Warpefelt (2015) applied Herzberg’s theory to Desurvire and Wiberg’s (2009) PLAY heuristics by viewing hygiene factors as ensuring a functional and enjoyable play experience.

In general, Straat found that video games determined to be of low quality — with a low average rating on a popular review website — tended to have more usability design issues; however, users tended to express more opinions about game aesthetics, narrative, or storyline than usability issues in their reviews (Straat and Verhageen, 2014).

The PLAY heuristic, as developed by Desurvire and Wiberg (2009), listed several factors in categories such as gameplay, emotional immersion, usability, and game mechanics.

This heuristic includes factors such as “Players feel in control,” “The game goals are clear,” and “there is an emotional connection between the player and the game world,” which parallel Herzberg’s workplace factors.

The researchers then categorized each item in this heuristic as a hygienic or motivational factor according to participant responses (Straat and Warpefelt, 2015).

Critical Evaluation

The two-factor theory has not been well supported by research. Generally, criticisms of the theory focus on Herzberg’s methodology and assumptions.

Critics have also noted that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both should be capable of motivating employees (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Herzberg conducted his formative motivation theory research at a time when organizations tended to be rigid and bureaucratic. As organizations shifted away from focusing on mass production and toward innovation, new theories of motivation, such as those based on behaviorism , evolved (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

A large number of replication studies emerged following Herzberg’s results. Those using Herzberg’s methodology — the critical incident framework — were consistent with his original results, while research that used methods such as surveys supported the traditional idea that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Soon after Motivation at Work’s publication, Vroom (1964) offered a notable critique of this phenomenon: people would naturally be inclined toward protecting their egos when asked to recall good and bad work moments, thus attributing good moments to their personal achievement and capability and bad moments to work (Basset-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Thus, in Herzberg’s original qualitative study involving about 200 participants, participants may have been biased when thinking about times in the past when they felt good or bad about their jobs.

Nonetheless, critics struggled to grapple with how Herzberg’s methodology produced results with such consistency.

Nonetheless, critics continued attributing Herzberg’s results to factors such as social desirability bias (Wall, 1973) and personality (Evans and McKee, 1970).

What is Herzberg two factor theory?

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.

Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.

Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.

According to Herzberg, what would be considered “motivators”?

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.

These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.

According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which factor would motivate individuals the most?

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.

These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.

Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.

However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings.

Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.

Bassett‐Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of management development.

Desurvire, H., & Wiberg, C. (2009). Game usability heuristics (PLAY) for evaluating and designing better games: The next iteration. Paper presented at the International conference on online communities and social computing.

Dion, M. J. (2006). The impact of workplace incivility and occupational stress on the job satisfaction and turnover intention of acute care nurses: University of Connecticut.

Evans, M., & McKee, D. (1970). Some effects of internal versus external orientations upon the relationship between various aspects of job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol, 2(1), 17-24.

Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man.

Herzberg, F. I. (1970). Avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Dec, 7.

Herzberg, F. I . (1971a). More on avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Jan. 18.

Herzberg, F. I. (1974). The wise old Turk. Harvard Business Review, 54(5), 70-80.

Herzberg, F. I. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human (2nd ed., Rev.). Salt Lake City, UT: Olympus.

Herzberg, F. I. (1991). Happiness and unhappiness: A brief autobiography of Frederick I. Herzberg. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Herzberg. F. I., & Hamlin, R. M. (1961). A motivation-hygiene concept of mental health. Mental Hygiene, 45 , 394-401.

Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, R., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.

Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Jones, T. L. (2011). Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction among school nurses. Walden University.

Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. (2005). Measurement of nurse practitioner job satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17(1), 27-32.

Koelbel, P. W., Fuller, S. G., & Misener, T. R. (1991). Job satisfaction of nurse practitioners: an analysis using Herzberg’s theory. The Nurse Practitioner, 16 (4), 43, 46-52, 55.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90 (1), 125.

Further Reading

• Resurrecting the MotivationHygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement
• Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A critical reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 11(1), 99-108.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples 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

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: 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

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

Human Resource Planning (HRP)

Aptitude Test for Employee Recruitment and Selection

Define on Successful Person in Life

Case Competition

According to a New Study, DNA Sequencing can Help Identify which Creatures are Most Likely to become Extinct

How to Find a Good Accountancy Agency

Man vs. Machine

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Survey on Various Drinkable Products

Surface Area of Cylinders

Latest post.

Silver Telluride – a Chemical Compound

Zinc Selenide – an inorganic compound

Drugs may Stop Migraines before they Start

Sleep Prepares Neurons for Making New Memories the Next Day

Potassium Selenide – an inorganic compound

Mercury Selenide – a chemical compound

Module 11: Motivation

Assignment: motivation, preparation.

Your text introduced you to many famous leaders and theorists in the subject of employee motivation. Each was notable for the different studies and/or theories they analyzed and professed. In this assignment, your mission is to match key definitions, theories, or concepts with the leaders or theorists who promoted them. The following steps will help you prepare for your written assignment:  

• Thoroughly read the Motivation module.
• As you read,  note  the key concepts and definitions of each theory and the author or leader who is most often associated with it.

Click the link to download the  Motivation assignment . Read the answer choices in the left column and the definition, associated terms, or key concepts in the center column. Complete the table by inserting the correct answer choice in the far right column. Hint: Each definition has only one correct theory or person. Submit your completed table for grading.

Your assignment will be graded on the basis of number of correct matches out of a total of 12.

• Assignment: Motivation. Authored by : Betty Fitte and Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

• Certified ScrumMaster (CSM) Certification
• Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO) Certification
• Leading SAFe 6.0 Certification
• Professional Scrum Master-Advanced™ (PSM-A) Training
• SAFe 6.0 Scrum Master (SSM) Certification
• Implementing SAFe 6.0 (SPC) Certification
• SAFe 6.0 Release Train Engineer (RTE) Certification
• SAFe 6.0 Product Owner Product Manager (POPM) Certification
• ICP-ACC Certification
• Agile Master's Program
• Agile Excellence Master's Program
• Kanban Management Professional (KMP I: Kanban System Design) Certification
• Professional Scrum Product Owner I (PSPO I) Training
• View All Courses

Accreditation Bodies

• Project Management Professional (PMP) Certification
• PRINCE2 Certification
• PRINCE2 Foundation Certification
• PRINCE2 Practitioner Certification
• Change Management Training
• Project Management Techniques Training
• Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Certification
• Program Management Professional (PgMP) Certification
• Portfolio Management Professional (PfMP) Certification
• Oracle Primavera P6 Certification
• Project Management Master's Program
• Microsoft Project Training
• Data Science Bootcamp
• Data Engineer Bootcamp
• Data Analyst Bootcamp
• AI Engineer Bootcamp
• Data Science with Python Certification
• Python for Data Science
• Machine Learning with Python
• Data Science with R
• Machine Learning with R
• Deep Learning Certification Training
• Natural Language Processing (NLP)

Enhance your career prospects with our Data Science Training

Embark on a Data Science career with our Data Analyst Bootcamp

Elevate your Data Science career with our AI Engineer Bootcamp

• DevOps Foundation Certification
• Docker with Kubernetes Training
• Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) Certification
• Kubernetes Training
• Docker Training
• DevOps Training
• DevOps Leader Training
• Jenkins Training
• Openstack Training
• Ansible Certification
• Chef Training
• AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate
• Multi-Cloud Engineer Bootcamp
• AWS Cloud Practitioner Certification
• Developing on AWS
• AWS DevOps Certification
• Azure Solution Architect Certification
• Azure Fundamentals Certification
• Azure Administrator Certification
• Azure Data Engineer Certification
• Azure Devops Certification
• AWS Cloud Architect Master's Program
• AWS Certified SysOps Administrator Certification
• Azure Security Engineer Certification
• Azure AI Solution Certification Training

Supercharge your career with our Multi-Cloud Engineer Bootcamp

• Full-Stack Developer Bootcamp
• UI/UX Design Bootcamp
• Full-Stack [Java Stack] Bootcamp
• Software Engineer Bootcamp
• Software Engineer Bootcamp (with PMI)
• Front-End Development Bootcamp
• Back-End Development Bootcamp
• React Training
• Node JS Training
• Angular Training (Version 12)
• Javascript Training
• PHP and MySQL Training

Work on real-world projects, build practical developer skills

Hands-on, work experience-based learning

Start building in-demand tech skills

• ITIL 4 Foundation Certification
• ITIL Practitioner Certification
• ISO 14001 Foundation Certification
• ISO 20000 Certification
• ISO 27000 Foundation Certification
• ITIL 4 Specialist: Create, Deliver and Support Training
• ITIL 4 Specialist: Drive Stakeholder Value Training
• ITIL 4 Strategist Direct, Plan and Improve Training
• FAAANG/MAANG Interview Preparation
• Python Certification Training
• Advanced Python Course
• R Programming Language Certification
• Advanced R Course
• Java Training
• Java Deep Dive
• Scala Training
• Advanced Scala
• C# Training
• Microsoft .Net Framework Training
• Tableau Certification
• Data Visualisation with Tableau Certification
• Microsoft Power BI Certification
• TIBCO Spotfire Training
• Data Visualisation with Qlikview Certification
• Sisense BI Certification
• Blockchain Professional Certification
• Blockchain Solutions Architect Certification
• Blockchain Security Engineer Certification
• Blockchain Quality Engineer Certification
• Blockchain 101 Certification
• Hadoop Administration Course
• Big Data and Hadoop Course
• Big Data Analytics Course
• Apache Spark and Scala Training
• Apache Storm Training
• Apache Kafka Training
• Comprehensive Pig Training
• Comprehensive Hive Training
• Android Development Course
• IOS Development Course
• React Native Course
• Ionic Training
• Xamarin Studio Training
• Xamarin Certification
• OpenGL Training
• NativeScript for Mobile App Development
• Selenium Certification Training
• ISTQB Foundation Certification
• ISTQB Advanced Level Security Tester Training
• ISTQB Advanced Level Test Manager Certification
• ISTQB Advanced Level Test Analyst Certification
• ISTQB Advanced Level Technical Test Analyst Certification
• Silk Test Workbench Training
• Automation Testing using TestComplete Training
• Cucumber Training
• Functional Testing Using Ranorex Training
• Teradata Certification Training
• Certified Business Analysis Professional (CBAP®)
• Entry Certificate in Business Analysis™ (ECBA™)
• Certification of Capability in Business Analysis™ (CCBA®)
• Business Case Writing Course
• Professional in Business Analysis (PMI-PBA) Certification
• Agile Business Analysis Certification
• Six Sigma Green Belt Certification
• Six Sigma Black Belt Certification
• Six Sigma Yellow Belt Certification
• CMMIV1.3 Training
• Cyber Security Bootcamp
• Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH v12) Certification
• Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) Certification
• Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) Certification
• Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) Certification
• Cybersecurity Master's Program
• Certified Cloud Security Professional (CCSP) Certification
• Certified Information Privacy Professional - Europe (CIPP-E) Certification
• Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT5) Foundation
• Payment Card Industry Security Standards (PCI-DSS) Certification
• Introduction to Forensic
• Digital Marketing Course
• PPC Training
• Web Analytics Course
• Social Media Marketing Course
• Content Marketing Course
• E-Mail Marketing Course
• Display Advertizing Course
• Conversion Optimization Course
• Mobile Marketing Course
• Introduction to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation
• Financial Risk Management (FRM) Level 1 Certification
• Financial Risk Management (FRM) Level 2 Certification
• Risk Management and Internal Controls Training
• Data Protection-Associate
• Credit Risk Management
• Budget Analysis and Forecasting
• International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for SMEs
• Diploma In International Financial Reporting
• Certificate in International Financial Reporting
• Corporate Governance
• Finance for Non-Finance Managers
• Financial Modeling with Excel
• Auditing and Assurance
• MySQL Course
• Redis Certification
• MongoDB Developer Course
• Postgresql Training
• Neo4j Certification
• Mariadb Course
• Hbase Training
• MongoDB Administrator Course
• Conflict Management Training
• Communication Course
• International Certificate In Advanced Leadership Skills
• Soft Skills Training
• Soft Skills for Corporate Career Growth
• Soft Skills Leadership Training
• Building Team Trust Workshop
• CompTIA A+ Certification
• CompTIA Cloud Essentials Certification
• CompTIA Cloud+ Certification
• CompTIA Mobility+ Certification
• CompTIA Network+ Certification
• CompTIA Security+ Certification
• CompTIA Server+ Certification
• CompTIA Project+ Certification
• Master of Business Administration from Golden Gate University Training
• MBA from Deakin Business School with Multiple Specializations
• Master of Business Administration from Jindal Global Business School Training
• Master of Business Administration from upGrad Training
• MS Excel 2010
• Advanced Excel 2013
• Certified Supply Chain Professional
• Software Estimation and Measurement Using IFPUG FPA
• Software Size Estimation and Measurement using IFPUG FPA & SNAP
• Leading and Delivering World Class Product Development Course
• Product Management and Product Marketing for Telecoms IT and Software
• Foundation Certificate in Marketing
• Flow Measurement and Custody Transfer Training Course

Project Management Tutorial

By knowledgehut ., 1. what is project management, 2. activity-based costing, 3. agile project management, 4. basic management skills, 5. basic quality tools, 6. benchmarking process, 7. cause and effect diagram, 8. change management process, 9. communication management, 10. communication blocker, 11. communication methods, 12. communication channels, 13. communication model, 14. conflict management, 15. critical path method (cpm), 16. critical chain method, 17. crisis management, 18. decision making process, 19. design of experiment, 20. effective communication skills, 21. effective presentation skills, 22. enterprise resource planning, 23. event chain methodology, 24. extreme project management, 25. gantt chart tool, 26. just-in-time (jit) manufacturing, 27. knowledge management, 28. leads, lags & float, 29. management best practices, 30. management styles, 31. management by objective (mbo), 32. monte carlo analysis, 33. motivation theories, 34. negotiation skills, 35. organization structures, 36. pert estimation technique, 37. prince2 project management methodology, 38. pareto chart tool, 39. powerful leadership skills, 40. process-based management, 41. procurement documents, 42. procurement management, 43. project activity diagram, 44. project charter, 45. project contract types, 46. project cost control, 47. project kick-off meeting, 48. project lessons learnt, 49. project management methodologies, 50. project management office, 51. project management processes, 52. project management tools, 53. project management triangle, 54. project manager goals, 55. project portfolio management, 56. project quality plan, 57. project records management, 58. project risk categories, 59. project risk management, 60. project scope definition, 61. project selection methods, 62. project success criteria, 63. project time management, 64. project management software, 65. project workforce management, 66. quality assurance and quality control, 67. raci chart tool, 68. rewards and recognition, 69. requirements collection, 70. resource levelling, 71. staffing management plan, 72. stakeholder management, 73. statement of work (sow), 74. stress management techniques, 75. structured brainstorming, 76. succession planning, 77. supply chain management, 78. team building program, 79. team motivation, 80. the balanced score card, 81. the halo effect, 82. the make or buy decision, 83. the rule of seven, 84. the virtual team, 85. total productive maintenance, 86. total quality management, 87. traditional project management, 88. work breakdown structure, motivation theories.

Motivation is a state of mind, filled with energy and enthusiasm, which drives a person to work in a certain way to achieve desired goals. Motivation is a force that pushes people to work with a high level of commitment and focus, even if things are going against them. Motivation translates into a certain kind of human behavior.  In short, motivation is the driving force behind human actions.

There are many different forces that guide and direct our motivations. It is important to ensure that every team member in an organization is motivated and meets the  best  project management  course  bottom line. Various psychologists have studied human behavior and have formalized their findings in the form of various motivational theories. These motivational theories provide insights into the way people behave and what motivates them.    

Motivation theory is a way of looking at the motivation of a person and how this influences their behavior, whether for personal or professional reasons. It's important to every aspect of society but is especially relevant to business and management. Motivation is the key to more profitable employees, as a motivated employee is more productive.

What are the 5 Theories of Motivation?  

Motivation is a huge field of study. Psychologists have proposed many different theories of motivation. Some of the most famous motivational theories include the following:  

1. Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchical Needs  

Abraham Maslow postulated that a person will be motivated when all his needs are fulfilled.  P eople do not work for security or money, but they work to contribute and to use their skills. He demonstrated this by creating a pyramid to show how people are motivated and mentioned that ONE CANNOT ASCEND TO THE NEXT LEVEL UNLESS LOWER-LEVEL NEEDS ARE FULFILLED. The lowest level needs in the pyramid are basic needs and unless these lower-level needs are satisfied people do not look at working toward satisfying the upper-level needs.   

Below is the hierarchy of needs:  

• Physiological needs: are basic needs for survival such as air, sleep, food, water, clothing, sex, and shelter.  
• Safety needs: Protection from threats, deprivation, and other dangers (e.g.,  health, secure employment, and property)  
• Social (belongingness and love) needs: The need for association, affiliation, friendship, and so on.  
• Self-esteem needs:  The need for respect and recognition.  
• Self-actualization needs:  The opportunity for personal development, learning, and fun/creative/challenging work.  Self-actualization is the highest-level need to which a human being can aspire.  

The leader will have to understand at what level the team members are currently, and seek out to help them to satisfy those specific needs and accordingly work to help fulfill those needs. This will help the team members perform better and move ahead with the project. A  PMP certification  will help you better understand this concept. Also, as their needs get fulfilled, the team members will start performing, till the time they start thinking of fulfilling the next upper level of need as mentioned in the pyramid.  

2. Hertzberg’s two-factor Theory  

Hertzberg classified the needs into two broad categories; namely hygiene factors and motivating factors:  

• poor hygiene factors may destroy motivation but improving them under most circumstances will not improve  team motivation  
• hygiene factors only are not sufficient to motivate people, but motivator factors are also required   

3. McClelland’s Theory of Needs  

McClelland affirms that we all have three motivating drivers, which do not depend on our gender or age. One of these drives will be dominant in our behavior. The dominant drive depends on our life experiences.   

The three motivators are:  

• Achievement :  a need to accomplish and demonstrate own competence. People with a high need for achievement prefer tasks that provide for personal responsibility and results based on their own efforts.  They also prefer quick acknowledgment of their progress.  
• Affiliation :  a need for love, belonging and social acceptance. People with a high need for affiliation are motivated by being liked and accepted by others.  They tend to participate in social gatherings and may be uncomfortable with conflict.  
• Power :   a need for controlling own work or the work of others. People with a high need for power desire situations in which they exercise power and influence over others.  They aspire for positions with status and authority and tend to be more concerned about their level of influence than about effective work performance.  

4.  Vroom’s Theory of Expectancy  

Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation says that an individual’s motivation is affected by their expectations about the future. In his view, an individual’s motivation is affected by –  

• Having the appropriate resources available (e.g., raw materials, time)  
• Having the appropriate  management skills  to do the job  
• Having the required support to get the job done (e.g., supervisor support, or correct information on the job)  
• A clear understanding of the relationship between performance and outcomes – e.g., the rules of the reward ‘game’  
• Trust in the people who will take the decisions on who gets what outcome  
• Transparency in the process decides who gets what outcome  
• Valence:  is how much importance the individual places upon the expected outcome. For example, if someone is motivated by money, he or she might not value offers of additional time off.  

Motivation = V * I * E  

The three elements are important when choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined:  

• E>P expectancy:  our assessment of the probability that our efforts will lead to the required performance level.  
• P>O expectancy:  our assessment of the probability that our successful performance will lead to certain outcomes.  

5. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y  

Theory X and Theory Y were first explained by McGregor in his book, "The Human Side of Enterprise," and they refer to two styles of management – authoritarian (Theory X) and participative (Theory Y).  

Theory X:  Managers who accept this theory believe that  if you feel that your  team members dislike their work, have little motivation, need to be watched every minute, and are incapable of being accountable for their work, avoid responsibility and avoid work whenever possible, then you are likely to use an authoritarian style of management. According to McGregor, this approach is very "hands-on" and usually involves micromanaging people's work to ensure that it gets done properly.   

Theory Y:  Managers who accept this theory believe that if people are willing to work without supervision, take pride in their work, see it as a challenge, and want to achieve more, they can direct their own efforts, take ownership of their work and do it effectively by themselves. These managers use a decentralized, participative management style.    

6. Alderfer’s ERG Theory

C. P. Alderfer, an American psychologist, developed Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into a theory of his own.   

His theory suggests that there are three groups of core needs: existence (E), relatedness (R), and growth (G). These groups are aligned with Maslow’s levels of physiological needs, social needs, and self-actualization needs, respectively.  

Existence needs  concern our basic material requirements for living, which include what Maslow categorized as physiological needs such as air,  sleep, food, water, clothing, sex and shelter  and safety-related needs such as health, secure employment, and property.  

Relatedness needs  have to do with the importance of maintaining interpersonal relationships. These needs are based on social interactions with others and are aligned with Maslow’s levels of love/belonging-related needs such as friendship, family, and sexual intimacy and esteem-related needs such as gaining the respect of others.  

Growth needs  describe our intrinsic desire for personal development. These needs are aligned with the other part of Maslow’s esteem-related needs such as self-esteem, self-confidence, and achievement, and self-actualization needs such as morality, creativity, problem-solving, and discovery.  

Alderfer is of the opinion that when a certain category of needs is not being met, people will redouble their efforts to fulfill needs in a lower category.  

Maslow’s theory is very rigid and it assumes that the needs follow a specific and orderly hierarchy and unless a lower-level need is satisfied, an individual cannot proceed to the higher-level need i.e., an individual remains at a particular need level until that need is satisfied.  

Whereas, according to Alderfer’s theory, if a higher-level need is aggravated, an individual may revert to increasing the satisfaction of a lower-level need. This is called the frustration-regression aspect of ERG theory. ERG theory is very flexible as Alderfer perceived the needs as a range/variety instead of perceiving them as a hierarchy i.e., an individual can work on growth needs even if his existence or relatedness needs remain unsatisfied.   

For e.g., when growth needs aggravate, then an individual might be motivated to accomplish the relatedness need and if there are issues in accomplishing relatedness needs, then he might be motivated by the existence needs. Hence in this manner, frustration or aggravation can result in regression to a lower-level need.  

Another example could be, if someone’s self-esteem is suffering, he or she will invest more effort in the relatedness category of needs.  

Implications of the ERG Theory    

All managers must understand that an employee has various needs that must be satisfied at the same time. According to the ERG theory, if the manager focuses solely on one need at a time, then this will not effectively motivate the employee. The frustration-regression aspect of ERG Theory has an added effect on workplace motivation. For e.g., if an employee is not provided with growth and advancement opportunities in an organization, then he or she might revert to related needs such as socializing needs.   

To meet those socializing needs, if the environment or circumstances do not permit it, he might revert to the need for money to fulfill those socializing needs. By the time the manager realizes and discovers this, they will take more immediate steps to fulfill those needs which are frustrated until such time that the employee can again pursue growth.

You can further explore  K nowledgeHut's best project management course  wh ich goes into full detail about the same.

Motivation is the state of mind which pushes all human beings to perform to their highest potential, with good spirits and a positive attitude.  The various motivation theories outlined above help us to understand what are the factors that drive motivation. It is a leader’s job to ensure that every individual in the team and the organization is motivated, and inspired to perform better than their best. This is neither quick nor easy, but in the long-term, the gains that are derived from happy employees far outweigh the time and effort spent in motivating them!  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

A valuable piece of knowledge. Thank you!

Eniola Samson

This blog is appreciated, thanks.

I like the article. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the information.

The content of the motivation theories are well explained and its has been of great help to me . Thank you for making it that easy for easy understanding.

Suggested Tutorials

PRINCE2 Tutorial [Video]

USEFUL LINKS

• PMP Online Training
• Project Management Professional Course in Brisbane
• PMP Certification Online in Sydney
• PMP Certification Online in New Delhi
• Project Management Professional Certification in San Diego

Get a 1:1 Mentorship call with our Career Advisor

Your Message (Optional)

Subscribe to our newsletter..

• Login Forgot Password

Don't Miss Out on Exclusive Discounts on Courses!

Future-proof your career with the latest in-demand courses.

• Get Job-Ready Digital Skills
• Experience Outcome-Based Immersive Learning
• Get Trained by a Stellar Pool of Industry Experts
• Best-In-Class Industry-Vetted Curriculum

By tapping submit, you agree to KnowledgeHut Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions

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

• September 23, 2024

7 Workplace Motivation Theories You Should Know

Employee motivation is one of the most important factors that can make a company thrive. It is the combination of reasons, desires, and incentives that lead employees to perform with commitment and enthusiasm.

It is what drives them to give their best, to pursue goals and to feel satisfied with the tasks they perform. In short, it is the “fuel” that gives life and directs the behavior of the team in the workplace.

And, despite its importance, do you really know what motivates your employees? Salary is important, yes. But science and analysis have shown that there is much more at stake.

Read on to discover what factors keep your employees’ passion on fire !

Extrinsic or Intrinsic Motivation?

Employee motivation can be categorized into two main types: extrinsic and intrinsic. Both play a crucial role in employee morale and productivity, although they work in very different ways.

Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic motivation refers to the external factors that drive employees to perform their tasks. These are:

• Tangible rewards : Monetary incentives such as bonuses, salary increases, gifts and prizes are classic examples of extrinsic motivation.
• Promotions and advancement : The opportunity for advancement within the organizational hierarchy is a strong extrinsic motivator.
• Public recognition : Being recognized in front of colleagues for achievements and good performance also works as an external stimulus.

It should be noted that, although extrinsic motivation is very effective in accelerating productivity in the short term, in the long term it is not only ineffective, but can even be counterproductive.

Intrinsic Motivation

On the other hand, intrinsic motivation comes from within the individual and is linked to personal satisfaction and passion for the work being done. It includes:

• Personal satisfaction : The gratification derived from completing tasks and achieving personal and professional goals.
• Passion for work : A genuine love for what you do and the desire to contribute positively.
• Continuous learning and development : Intrinsic motivation also highlights the opportunity to learn, grow and develop professionally.

Unlike the previous one, intrinsic motivation does tend to be a more sustainable motivator in the long term since it is rooted in the employee’s personal values and desires.

The importance of knowing how to distinguish between different types of motivation

Understanding the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is essential for organizations looking to establish effective motivation strategies.

For a team to work happily and efficiently, it is good to combine both types in perfect balance. That is, to give rewards and recognition , but also to make sure that people enjoy what they do.

In this way, team leaders create a positive and productive work environment that benefits both the employee and the organization as a whole.

Key employee motivation theories that you should know

If you want to know how to increase your team’s morale , then you’ll be interested in knowing which factors most influence their motivation.

These factors vary depending on the author, so let’s look at the most important work motivation theories:

1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Maslow’s well-known pyramid explains that an employee is motivated when five different types of needs are met:

• Physiological needs: These would be satisfied with an adequate salary and comfortable working conditions.
• Security needs: Refers to job security, understood as having a stable position, as well as social benefits and a work environment without risks to physical and mental health.
• Social needs: Promote camaraderie and cultivate a sense of belonging to a team.
• Esteem needs: These are met through recognition of a job well done, respect for the individual and the status to which he or she belongs.
• Self-realization: Finally, this would include opportunities for personal and professional development and the realization of individual potential.

2. Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

We’ve previously discussed this theory in depth here . But to summarise, Herzberg insists that motivation depends on two key elements that must be in constant balance:

Hygienic factors (dissatisfactory)

Those that do not produce motivation but that, when poorly managed, harm the employee experience. These are:

• Working conditions.
• Company policies.
• Job security.
• Interpersonal relationships.

Motivating factors (satisfiers)

These factors do drive motivation and are the ones we want to keep team morale high. They include:

• Recognition.
• Achievement.
• Responsibility.
• Interesting and challenging work.
• Opportunities for growth and promotion.

3. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory suggests that an employee’s motivation is determined by the expectation that his or her effort will lead to good performance and, therefore, to desirable outcomes.

It basically focuses on individual perceptions and how they influence decisions about whether it is worth working to achieve the goal. To do so, the author focuses on three essential variables:

• Expectancy: Belief that effort will lead to performance.
• Instrumentality: Belief that performance will lead to results.
• Valence: Value given to results or rewards.

4. Adams’ Equity Theory

Adams proposes that employees evaluate the fairness of their rewards by comparing their effort and the rewards received with those of their peers and others in similar positions. So, the perception of fairness or inequity will influence their motivation and performance.

• Internal equity: Comparison of effort and reward with that of others within the same organization.
• External equity: Comparison of effort and reward with that of others in similar roles in other organizations.

That said, if employees feel that they are treated the same as everyone else, they will feel motivated and satisfied because they will not notice any inequality.

On the other hand, if they feel inequity, that is, they see that managers give more benefits to other colleagues, they are more likely to become frustrated and demotivated. In fact, inequity in the treatment of employees can even lead to absenteeism or high employee turnover.

5. Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory

Similar to Maslow’s Pyramid, these two authors suggest that employee motivation is influenced by the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs :

• Autonomy: Degree of control that the employee has over his or her work.
• Competence: Feeling of skill and mastery at work.
• Relationship: Connection and social support with others in the work environment.

When these three needs are met, employees are more likely to feel motivated, engaged and satisfied in their work. Furthermore, together, these needs foster intrinsic motivation, which, as mentioned above, is crucial for employee well-being and sustained performance.

6. Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory

Based on operant conditioning, it states that employee behavior can be shaped through the use of reinforcements and punishments . Thus, it focuses on how the consequences of an action influence the likelihood of that behavior being repeated in the future.

For this occasion we will focus on the first two:

• Positive reinforcement: Giving praise or rewards when employees do something well motivates them to repeat that behavior.
• Negative reinforcement: Removing unpleasant tasks when an employee does a good job also motivates repeating that behavior. For example, if an employee meets their sales goal, relieving them of some administrative tasks they find boring would increase the likelihood that they will meet their goal again in the future.

So, according to Skinner, if we use these principles appropriately, we can improve the employee motivation and performance of team members.

7. Locke and Latham’s Goal Theory

Finally, this theory suggests that to boost employee motivation, we need to set goal s, as they provide direction and a standard for measuring progress.

But not just any goal will do fine. They must meet five criteria:

• Clarity: Goals must be specific and clear.
• Difficulty: They also need to be challenging but achievable.
• Commitment: Goals will not be achieved if employees are not committed to them.
• Feedback: Managers and directors must keep their team updated on the progress of the objectives.
• Task complexity: If the objective to be achieved is complex or requires a lot of effort, it will be divided into smaller goals to be achieved step by step, always complying with the previously mentioned criteria.

As you can see, employee motivation is multifaceted and requires a holistic approach that goes far beyond a simple salary.

But, how do you know which factors are most relevant to your employees?

Keep it simple with Team Insights . Our tool will allow you to understand the needs and desires of your team, providing the information you need to create a more effective and motivating work environment.

Get started today and transform your company from within!

Table of Contents

Make decisions with information, not intuition.

Ensure you drive your decisions to the right direction. Align your budget and actions to the real needs of your team. Talk to people with true and honest feedback in your hands.

Copyright © 2023 Team Insights