Talk:Motivation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by RuthLivingstone, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 5 Feb 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

New type of Motivation: Inherent Motivation[edit]

I am planning to add a section on a new type of motivation referred to as Inherent Motivation. In some communities, individuals perform tasks to benefit their community. As supposed to feeling obligated to help simply because others need them too, they participate in communal activities to mutually benefit the community they are a part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw1244 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Will like to contribute[edit]

Hello I am here because of a class project. So I have to contribute to articles on wikipedia. I want to contribute to subtitle Achievement Motivation. Check out the sandbox. Anthony's Achievement Motivation Sandbox thanks in advance.

Ant N York (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) i think its a wonderful and valuable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.103.25 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Endless Problems Here![edit]

Hi there! I have several issues with this entry, with the exceptions of my own texts. 1. Why was my introductory text removed? As it is now, I'm very displeased with the change. Authority bias disclaimer. I teach psychology at the university. I've written a thesis on motivation. I have an ongoing research project on motivation. By these notions, I should have some kind of authority here, yes? When I teach, my students read text books and Internet sources. They repeatedly and consistently confuse motivation with emotion and personality. Therefore, I wish that my initial text that explains the differences between these concepts should be reinstated. Furthermore, the Geen (1995) definition is not a simple opinion - it's the most accepted definition in the research community. As written now, it appears that this Geen fellow just has an opinion, whereas the initial text is something else, right?

2. There is a major difference between research perspectives on motivation. If you have a textbook on management, organizational psychology, leadership or even economy, you will find that the definitions and theories in there will not mesh very well with theories in educational psychology. There are different paradigms and the criticism from one to the other is very harsh, particularly researchers who feel that empirical evidence is critical for progress in the field such as educational psychologists (who often try to motivate pupils in school contexts). Other researchers, or philosophers, (who writes about working contexts) feel that writing about what they think about people's or employees' intentions, motives and motivation is interesting and useful. The former group tend to dismiss the latter's texts and theories as bullshit. This is also evident in these forums. Just check out the entry on Maslow. Therefore, I suggest breaking up this entry into these two perspectives. If we do not break it up more cleverly, this entry will very likely confuse readers. I myself am quite sceptical, and I strongly dislike the fact that some very poor or heavily criticized theories are put alongside theories with much better (or any) scientific standing. For the unskilled layman, this gives the impression that they are of equal value within the scientific community, which is simply not true.

How about this? "Motivation is studied in various academic and corporal fields, roughly, these fields can be categorized into... A. Educational psychology B. Animal psychology C. Organizational psychology D. Economic theories E. Philosophical ideas F. Whatever more someone else might come up with

3. I hope, for dear science, that Freud's ideas on subconscious motivation will not be included here. Just because a famous person say something does not make it true. I suggest that anyone who wishes to write about that, there will be plenty of space under the Freud as person entry. However, using Bargh's preconscious motivation or intention is okay with me. Clebo (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Clebo Clebo (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your views are welcome because we really need someone with expertise to work on this article. Motivation is primarily a branch of psychology and therefore psychological theories and research evidence should form the core of the article. Rather than split the article now, I suggest that you just go ahead and develop high quality content. Non-scientific perspectives on motivation (with proper citations) could be accommodated in separate sections until the article becomes too large, at which time we could think about how to split it or take some other action. Nesbit (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with Clebo's reasoning in general, I object to his use of the term "hairy balls" in particular, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in being glad that his edit was reverted. Clebo, lets show a bit more professionalism in your participation at wikipedia ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.138.1 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SHOUTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED[edit]

I suggest changing these capital letters (NOTE: THAT HERZBERG, MAYO, MASLOW ETC... ARE MOTIVATION THEORIES HOWEVER MCGREGOR IS A MOTIVATION OF LEADERSHIP) to quieter letters, the sentence still needs editing, integrating it into the body would be even better. Perhaps changing the word 'nicer' to a more specific 'tastier' when referring to food might be nicer an improvement. More References and citations of sources are needed.
- Human relations model -

Elton Mayo found out that the social contacts a worker has at the workplace are very important and that boredom and repetitiveness of tasks lead to reduced motivation. Mayo believed that workers could be motivated by acknowledging their social needs and making them feel important. As a result, employees were given freedom to make decisions on the job and greater attention was paid to informal work groups. Mayo named the model the Hawthorne effect. The problem with his model is undue reliance on social contacts at work situations for motivating employees.[1]"" Its noted as an effect , then criticised for not being a complete model, does it claim to be a complete model? --203.153.253.16 23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing further text[edit]

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

Questionable text[edit]

From the main text :

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

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

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

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

Questions and edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nesbit 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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


"Biological psychology of drives Drive theory There are a 'number' of drive theories. " This doesn't seem quite right. I would edit it myself but I really don't know what it's supposed to say.

Structure of Article[edit]

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

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

I will insert this here to agree with Clebo that the article looks like a box of stuff in search of a structure, which is needed for others to pitch in on the writing. For comparison, the article on Cognition seems pretty much limited to a current academic treatment. Would the following be a friendly amendment to Clebo's suggested outline above? General definition; history of the idea (compact, maybe a way to deal briefly with some of the stuff in the box); current conceptions (with Clebo's suggested trio of biological, cognitive, and social theories); and uses (as those tend to vary in lingo, context, import, etc.). Definition and history for the general user, academically current in the middle, with uses for people who come to the page with that in mind. The following comment and table of contents were entered by Clebo with the message above Tombird 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Building on your idea, how about this simple top-level structure as a starting point?
  • Lead
  • History of the concept
  • Biological theories
  • Cognitive theories
  • Social theories
  • Applications
Also, I suggest that we fairly ruthlessly move much of the older, less academic and non-verified material into an archive section on this page. Or is there a better way to archive it?
Nesbit 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge[edit]

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

Nobody seems to have any problem with this idea. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself. Is someone else willing to merge this if there continues to be no opposition? --Gellender 07:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I could try it, if I have the time. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've merged some content, and converted Recognition Programs to a redirect to Motivation. The original article had some worthy content, but was entirely sourced from one text: Essentials of Organizational Behavior (ninth edition). This is a well-established textbook for social science students. However, without inline citations or context in the article, one would need more information (at minimum, a copy of the source text) to properly frame the assertions as part of the evolution of sociopsychological discourse. The additions to the article since that time lack sources, and are vague and of dubious merit. The content is easily superseded by the superior "Motivation" article. For all of these reasons, I've carried over only the essential tenets from the cited text, appending them to the "Business" subsection. Ringbang (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Introductory quote[edit]

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

Do you have a source? — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not a direct quote but its paraphrased from chapter 6 of Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which quote? I was referring to your proposed change. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

As I asked above, where are you getting this definition? Do you have a source for what you just said in the latter paragraph? — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Morley et al 2004, "Principles of Organisational Psychology: An Irish Text", 2nd Edition, Gill &MacMillan, Dublin Martinq22 10:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this definition is not adequate. It supports one viewpoint of motivation (that it is extrinsic/intrinsic). Some people do not share this view. For example, some think that motivation is driven by goals. (Of course, you can fit that into the extrinsic/intrinsic viewpoint, but that's beside the point.) — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
free stuff please

Please add ARCS motivational theory

I quoted Geen for the definition of motivation. Sometimes, the third feature is replaced by the "unwillingness to cease" an activity. The suggested new definition is, to me, significantly weaker, as it contains less information. For instance, "can be understood" is a strange phrase. Furthermore, what does a set of forces mean? In defense of Geen's definition, it explains what part of behavior motivational psychology studies; how behavior starts and maintains, and how intense it is. To me, this is more information than "lead people to behave in a particular way. Clebo —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:53:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC).


I revised the first paragraph. Please see if you find it clearer and more comprehensive. A sound definition needs to be short, exact, and broad - inclusive of all theories. We need to leave out specific references, such as the Geen reference which I deleted (the place for that may be in the theories section). I found the previous phrasing grammatically/logically ambiguous: ... "is a reason or reasons"... " engaging in a particular behaviour, especially human behaviour"... etc. --Lucian (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Base motive[edit]

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

I agree with the merge. "Base motive" is not particularly useful as a stand-alone entry. --Jcbutler 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merge although there isn't really any content of note in the standalone 'Base motive' article. The assertion that 'base motives are scientifically proven' is not referenced nd a quick interent search only finds references to the phrase as used in German Criminal Code (and there to distinguish between murder and manslaughter). The basic idea behind the current article (if I've understood it correctly) is that there is an element of intrinsic compulsion involved when behviour is influenced by 'base motives. It's not easy to see how to fit it into the Motivation article except possibly under Social and self regulation. rgds, ||:) johnmark† 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Works better as part of Motivation. CloudNine 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I propose that the base motive article as it is be deleted. The actual concept (e.g., "ulterior motive" or "hidden agenda") is only tangentially concerned with the psychology of motivation, and is concerned with crime or deception. "Base" can mean morally low as well as fundamental, and motive can mean a high-level cognate such as "purpose".Vendrov 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think that Vendrov's idea is good. Motive is not the same thing as motivation. Motive refers much more to intention than behavior. Clebo 17:45, 19 August 2007.

Cren[edit]

The section on punishment mentions "cren":

Punishment, when referred in general, is an unfavorable condition introduced into the environment to eliminate undesirable behavior. This is used as one of the measures of Behavior Modification. Action resulting in punishment will demotivate repetition of action. Also the matter of cren is evident.

At one point or another, we have all been either a leader or a follower. While both roles are equally important, a leader plays an instrumental role in providing direction for his/her followers. A good way to identify an effective leader is to see if his/her followers are able to support and accomplish what their leader is asking of their team. In order to be a great leader, one must possess various qualities that will attract followers. The following qualities are just of few of the many qualities that are vital for effective leadership. Charisma - A notable charismatic leader was Martin Luther King, Jr. Decades after his death, King is still honored today for his passionate movement towards equality. His most famous speech, “I have a dream,” still impacts a current generation as his powerful words grace the majority of history textbooks all over America. His speech radiates personality because of his expressive words in his fight against inequality. Like King’s speech, charismatic leaders have the gift to touch people through their choice of words. Charismatic leaders are alluring, charming and can encourage followers to support a grand vision or idea. Positive Attitude - A leader who possesses a positive attitude will influence his/her followers to carry that same attitude. An example of a positive leader could be a parent or teacher. Mothers, fathers, or elementary teachers appear and are viewed as role models to the young children they are teaching and nurturing. These role models are the first leaders they encounter in life. Children become very dependent of leaders because they are their vehicles to the outside world and provide much needed help and assistance. If a parent is nurturing and loving to their child, they will thrive under this encouragement... If a school teacher provides a positive learning experience to the child, they will succeed and that success will become contagious... In any circumstance, a leader’s positive attitude will have greater impact and influence on their followers. Motivation - In an athletic world, a motivating leader could be a coach, trainer or even a fellow teammate. While the “talent” of players is a good determinant of a winning team, their coach is also an important factor. If a coach can not produce a winning team, his job is at stake. A coach’s motivation involves infusing his players with high standards, and setting challenging but attainable goals as they perform well. Thus, his/her ability to motivate his players will enhance their performances. Motivation also correlates with having a positive attitude. When a coach has a positive attitude and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.209.251 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC) What is "cren"? It's not mentioned elsewhere in the article.75.111.197.14 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Lead[edit]

Is the word "motivation" only about conscious human behavior? Does it include "unconscious" motivation of humans? If it does, then does it also include the motivation of animals? To how broad a set of entities can the word be applied? I think the article is going to be about only human motivation, but it needs to say so. But, clearly, if motivation can be unconscious, then some of the study of animal behavior could be relevant for understanding human motivation and needs to be referred to. I think that kind of positioning needs to go in the lead, with possibly some discussion of the relationship of animal studies in a section of the article. DCDuring 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Motivation[edit]

Motivation in psychology usually covers animal behavior, as most of the research literature is on animals. The assumption is that motivation is motivation, just like Skinner's animal studies demonstrated reinforcement patterns that applied to human behavior. --Mattisse 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article takes a particular point of view in that regard, I think that the reader needs to understand in the lead what s/he is getting. I wonder also whether even all the editors understand things in the same way as you. Which is why I bring the matter up. Should we not have links to discussions of motivation in animal ethology if animal behavior is included or germane ? DCDuring 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kick in the Ass[edit]

This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick in the Ass, might be of interest to editors here. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Someone had included a sentence here saying that the word was derived from 'motive'. That's wrong, as both 'motive' and 'motivation' are derived from the same Latin root. I've fixed it, including a reference.Bedesboy (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge[edit]

I have proposed Merging Recognition Programs into this article. Discussion? Esasus (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not favor the merge because motivation is very broad topic with theoretical foundations in psychology and applications in education, business, health care, and so on. Books have been written on motivation that don't even mention recognition programs (although perhaps they should). The article on recognition programs seems to be one facet of the application of motivation in business, and probably could be expanded to form a large article if all the relevant research were properly reviewed. Nesbit (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I considered a merge when proposing the article for deletion. Part of the issue is that Recognition Programs isn't very neutral or well-sourced - it's more like advice than information, so it'd be tricky to integrate into another article in a useful way. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also oppose the merge. Maybe Recognition Programs could be improved, but I don't think such a specific application would improve this article, unless it is reduced to a single sentence or example. The Motivation article should be general and theoretical in emphasis. By the way, "Recognition Programs" is not consistent with wikipedia style conventions regarding the capitalization of articles. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Universal Motivation.[edit]

Everything in our reality changes and the change is manifested as the flow of time. The flow may be accelerated or decelerated, it may be fast or slow, but the change is always there. The static units which can be observed may change so slowly that we do not observe the change. Alternatively the change of the static unit may be quantitative. The change may concern inside or the outside of the unit. The reality in which we exist is a mixture of quantitative and continuous change only the reality itself is perfectly static when viewed as a whole even though internally it is dynamic. Static state has no initiative so that there must be an independent motivation before there is a change. The motivation acts upon itself because the existing velocity is the result of the previous changes due to motivation. What chaanges is the velocity of change but not the change itself. Change occurs when velocity 'n' accelerates to velocity (n+1) or decelerates to (n-1). The beginning of change is always the point at which extra unit '1' of velocity is added or subtracted. That point is always static with regard to the change. But where does the new punit '1' of velocity come fgrom?

When plurality of the units of velocity 'n' changes to (n+1) the additional unit '1' can be added quantitatively or it can be built up slowly within the space of(0<1), in steps of 1/2 to power of 'n' im (0<n<oo). The smallest part of '1' is 1/2 to power (oo-1). That means that there is no 'beginning' of change because the perfect static state '0' can never be reached. But whatever the smallest part is there are always 2 of these parts and they are identical as the observer and the observed part. Simultaneously the 2 parts are a contradiction. By being conscious of the 'self', as the duality of Nothingness of the limit of 'I' of the observer in the 'now', the observer sees the plurality of 4 in the next 'now'. By observing the plurality of 4 he sees the total plurality of 8 and so on. The dynamism cannot be stopped and this is motivation by the static observer who is the Nothingness '0', as the limit of 'I', and the 'Whole' of '1' without the 'end' at (oo). KK (92.24.90.101 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Neuroscience?![edit]

Where is the neuroscience in this article? Motivation is controlled by the brain, but my quick scan saw little or no physiology. Please look at the french article (for those who can read french) section 6

From the french motivation article:

6 Bases biologiques impliquées dans la motivation 6.1 Hormones et motivation 6.2 Hypothalamus et motivation 6.3 Système hédonique et motivation

Heck, even if you can't read french, someone could just use a translator (like google chrome) and copy paste section 6 into the English.

That is a good START.Grouphug (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, FWIW[edit]

Oxford English Dictionary definition:

Motivation b. orig. Psychol. The (conscious or unconscious) stimulus for action towards a desired goal, esp. as resulting from psychological or social factors; the factors giving purpose or direction to human or animal behaviour. Now also more generally (as a count noun): the reason a person has for acting in a particular way, a motive.

c. orig. Psychol. and Sociol. The general desire or willingness of someone to do something; drive, enthusiasm.

Anthony (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC) motivation...which scientist motivates 'neutron' and makes it explode after 15 minutes? KK (78.147.240.8 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

"Motivation in linguistics"[edit]

I've moved this paragraph out of the article because its language needs improvement before it's ready for the encyclopedia. I can't tell what it means, and I'm not sure this sense of "motivation" is the right one for this article which is about the psychological drive. Perhaps these points belong in an article on linguistics, but they need to be easier to read.

Words' motivation means the principles of the meanings of the words, which is logic basic for a word's morpheme connecting with other morphemes in that word. In English words, there are mainly five kinds of motivation. They are onomatopoeic motivation, semantic motivation, original motivation, morphological motivation and logical motivation. The words' motivation seems contradict with one of design features of human languages: Arbitrariness. This shows that not all the words has their motivations. Some words have no motivated relationship between its linguistic form and its meaning.

MartinPoulter (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory[edit]

I felt that the Cognitive dissonance theory was a little skimpy in what it provided. I made the cognitive dissonance more specific on this page, and further explained the first example, to better point out where the dissonance occurred. In the second paragraph I pointed out the relation to the cognitive miser perspective, because the desire to not exert mental effort is what causes people to avoid dissonance. I specified that and then made the wording a little more streamlined in the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienlabonte11 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Work motivation[edit]

There is a link on Work motivation that suggests that Work motivation should be moved into a subcategory of Motivation. There should be a link on Motivation linking Work motivation but not to copy the entire thing into Motivation. First, Work Motivation is a key aspect of Industrial and organizational psychology and as such, should be it's own separate topic. Second, there is too much information on Work motivation to make to fit it into a sub category. It is messy when one sub category is this long while other categories in the same topic only have a few paragraphs to explain their subtopic. In short, these topics should remain separate but link to each other. If you disagree, please post on my talk page. Jastha08 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems here![edit]

This item needs a lot of work - the introduction needed to be written in plain English, so I tried to do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefthandedthing (talkcontribs) 15 Dec 2012

Two functions[edit]

I moved the following sentences out of the article:

It is widely believed that motivation performs two functions. The first is often referred to as the energetic activation component of the motivation construct. The second is directed at a specific behavior and makes reference to the orientation directional component.[clarification needed]

Apart from being unclear, it is also unsourced. So whoever wrote this: please clarify, please state a source, then you can put it back into the article.
With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for organising this article[edit]

This article is looking better but the structure remains confusing with different models and approaches muddled together. I propose moving the bulk of the subheadings into 2 substantial sections (1) theories and models and (2) practical applications. Will do this in a couple of days unless anyone can propose a valid argument against!

RuthLivingstone (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! Lova Falk talk 10:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing - let's choose a language[edit]

From a copy editing point of view, shall we stick with American English spelling? RuthLivingstone (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I've put a notice at the top of this Talk page. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we've got as far as we can with copy editing. This article is still a bit of a mess, but the content needs sorting out by people who understand the subject before a copy editor can do any further work. Removed the copy-edit tag but feel free to reinsert if and when we need to do more. RuthLivingstone (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Motivation images i need......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.81.114 (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

i think the definition is not properly mentioned it has to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.53.106 (talkcontribs) 11:27, 14 June 2013‎

What about emotion and all that?[edit]

As an economist with no special expertise in psychology, I find this page spectacularly unhelpful because it isn't related back to narrower areas of psychology that seem to me to be scientifically more advanced. In particular, from this article I can find no way to tell exactly what motivation has to do with: emotion; personality; traits; values; beliefs. Going further afield to sociology, it would also be nice (but not as essential) to know what motivation has to do with ideology, mores, roles. As it stands now, at a theoretical level this page leads me to believe that the concept of "motivation" (unlike "emotion" and all the other topics I mentioned) is of no use to economists. Granted, at a more practical level there are many models listed here that economists might use, but they have no cumulative weight and don't seem add up to any overall pattern or kind of thing. Also I think some of these more specific models might fit into other categories such as emotion.

As a partial retreat, it seems to me that this material might be moving toward a theory of action. That is, given certain values and beliefs in a certain context, what action does one take and how is it decided? But if that is the same as "motivation," then this article seems way too broad and scattered. Why have we got some of the values and beliefs tied up into the theories of action? They ought to be independent variables.

I suppose this partly goes to the still unresolved and fuzzy definition of "motivation." But the problem goes deeper. Is "motivation" really a distinct topic at all? I need convincing.

Burressd (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Neurological basis of motivation[edit]

Motivation is a function of brain processing which should be described in a new section. Is there an existing article on brain activity for motivation? Which parts of the brain do motivation? Greensburger (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Educational Motivation and Neurological Basis of Motivation?[edit]

As mentioned above there needs to be more from neuroscience incorporated in here. Second, the achievement motivation section is severely lacking in current information and the area of education. Jjk5ne (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Extrinsic & intrinsic motivation[edit]

Many areas of applied psychology study extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, not just social psych? Will edit accordingly iss246 to provide balance in article and prevent a distorted view that is just social psych research which is very inaccurateMrm7171 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This statement "Social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead to overjustification and a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation." is misleading. The overjustification effect relating to extrinsic motivation is foun d in many areas of research. Maybe you are mixing it up with the next sentence iss246? The next sentence cites the social & personality journal? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Also you said a particular researcher was a social psychologist? Perhaps you meant social psych professor, not social psychologist? Either way, these specificities belong in the social psychology article, not a broad based article on motivation as this article is? thoughts iss246? Better to discuss issues here, on the talk page, rather than edit war iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Will leave this here a bit longer then before making changes, based on the reasons detailed above.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Elton Mayo[edit]

Mayo was neither an industrial psychologist nor a sociologist. See David Cullen's dissertation, A new way of statecraft: The career of Elton Mayo. Proquest Dissertations and Theses. Mayo earned a BA in philosophy and psychology at Adelaide (where the ICOH-WOPS conference will be held in September 2014). That was the highest degree he earned. If you want to learn how he got a position at HBS, read this terribly interesting dissertation. Iss246 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaced Intro[edit]

Since intros are short, it makes more sense to replace than to tinker. The Michigan educational psychologists whose work is the best source for the statements in the current intro seemed to think that it was important to state what type of concept motivation is. Given that there is a lot of complexity and contention in the academic literature, yet the word motivation is often used just as a commonplace, I think they were wise to remind their readers that motivation is a theoretical construct. Also, it seems to me that it is useful to highlight in the examples the breadth of behavior (behaviour) that human beings exhibit. It seemed to me that it is acceptable (at least in the intro) to think only about the human sphere. The text is as follows: Motivation is a theoretical construct, used to explain behaviour (behavior). Motives are hypothetical constructs, used to explain why people do what they do, for example, when they use some strategy to achieve a goal. According to Maehr and Meyer, 1997 ("Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We've Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go" = Educational Psychology Review, Vol 9, No. 4,), "Motivation is a word that is part of the popular culture as few other psychological concepts are". Wikipedia editors will have a motive (or motives) for engaging in any particular edit, even if such motives are complex and difficult to pinpoint. At the other end of the range of complexity, hunger is frequently the motive for seeking out and consuming food. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please look to a solid source[edit]

The biggest challenge with a topic like motivation is focus.

I strongly recommending reviewing the Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.76.129 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)