The Port Arthur massacre of 2829 April 1996 was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. It occurred mainly at the historic Port Arthur former prison colony,[1] a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia.[2]

Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, was found guilty and given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.[3] Following the incident, it emerged in the media that Bryant had significant intellectual disabilities. He is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near the Risdon Prison Complex.[4]

The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person. Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of high capacity semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories.[5]

Martin Bryant inherited about $570,000 AUD (300,000 GBP or $450,000 USD) worth of property and other assets from a friend, Helen Harvey, who left her estate to him.[6] He used part of this money to go on many trips around the world from 1993 onwards.[7] Bryant also withdrew many thousands of dollars during this period. He used at least some of this money in late 1993 to purchase an AR-10 semi-automatic rifle through a newspaper advertisement in Tasmania. In March 1996, he had his AR-10 repaired at a gun shop and made enquiries about AR-15 rifles in other gun shops. In April 1995, he also purchased cleaning kits for a .30 calibre weapon and a 12 gauge Daewoo shotgun. He purchased a sports bag and told a shop attendant that it would need to be strong enough to carry large amounts of ammunition. He told his girlfriend, Petra Wilmott, a different story about the purpose of the bag. He also hid the weapons and a large amount of ammunition at his house. At the time of purchase no registration of guns outside of handguns was required in Tasmania.

Bryant's father had tried to purchase a bed and breakfast property called Seascape, but David and Noelene (also known as Sally) Martin bought this property before his father could ready his finances, much to the disappointment of the father who often complained to his son of the "double dealing" the Martins had done to secure the purchase. Bryant offered to buy another property from the Martins at Palmers Lookout Road, but they declined the offer. Bryant apparently believed the Martins had deliberately bought the property to hurt his family and believed this event to be responsible for the depression that led to his father's suicide, which in turn led to their own murders. Bryant described them as "very mean people" and as "the worse [sic] people in my life."[8]

The events of this day were pieced together after investigation by police. The facts were then presented in court on 19 November 1996.[9]

Bryant was awakened at 6:00 am by his alarm clock. His girlfriend and other family members said he had never been known to use it since he did not work and had no other commitments. At 8:00am, his girlfriend left the house to visit her parents. Bryant left the house and switched on the burglar alarm, which registered the time as 9:47am.

Bryant travelled to Forcett Village, arriving some time around 11:00am. He continued down to Port Arthur and was seen driving into Seascape down the Arthur Highway around 11:45am. He stopped at the Seascape guest accommodation site that his father had wanted to purchase, owned by David and Noelene Martin. Bryant went inside and fired several shots, then gagged David Martin and stabbed him. Witnesses testified to different numbers of shots fired at this time. It was stated in court that it was believed that this was the time that Bryant killed the Martins, his first two victims.

A couple stopped at Seascape. Bryant appeared outside. When they asked if they could have a look at the accommodation, Bryant told them that they could not because his parents were away and his girlfriend was inside. His demeanour was described as quite rude and the couple felt uncomfortable. They left at about 12:35pm. Bryant's car was seen reversed up to the front door. It is assumed he unloaded ammunition.[9]

Bryant drove to Port Arthur, taking the keys to the Seascape properties after locking the doors. Bryant stopped at a car which had pulled over from overheating and talked with two people there. He suggested that they come to the Port Arthur caf for some coffee later.[10]

He travelled past the Port Arthur historic site toward a Palmer's Lookout Road property owned by the Martins, where he came across Roger Larner driving out of his driveway. Larner had met him on some occasions more than 15 years before, but did not initially recognise him. Bryant told Larner he had been surfing and had bought a property called Fogg Lodge and was now looking to buy some cattle from Larner. Bryant also made several comments about buying the Martins' place next door. He asked if Marian Larner was home, and asked if he could continue down the driveway of the farm to see her. Larner said OK, but told Bryant he would come also. Bryant changed his mind and left, claiming he was going to return in the afternoon.[citation needed]

At around 1:10pm, Bryant got in line at the toll booth at the entrance to the historic site. Upon getting close to the toll booth, he left the line and moved to the back again. Eventually getting to the front of the line, he claimed someone had almost reversed into him. He paid the entry fee and proceeded to park near the Broad Arrow Caf, near the water's edge. The site security manager told him to park with the other cars because that area was reserved for camper-vans and the car park was very busy that day. Bryant moved his car to another area and sat in his car for a few minutes. He then moved his car back near the water, outside the caf. The security manager saw him go up to the caf carrying a large bag and a video camera, but ignored him.

Bryant went into the caf and purchased a meal, which he ate on the deck outside. He attempted to start conversations with people about the lack of "wasps" in the area and there not being as many Japanese tourists as usual, but he seemed to be mainly mumbling to himself. He appeared nervous and continually looked back to the car-park and into the caf.

Bryant finished his meal, walked into the caf and returned his tray, assisted by some people who opened the door for him. He put his bag down on a table and pulled a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine with a Colt scope and one 30-round magazine attached out of the bag. He left the bag which contained, among other things, the knife with which he had stabbed Martin, on the table. It is believed the magazine was partially emptied from the shootings at Seascape.

The caf was very small, with the tables very close together. It was busy that day as people waited for the next ferry. The events happened extremely quickly. Bryant took aim from his hip and pointed his rifle at Moh Yee (William) Ng and Sou Leng Chung, who were visiting from Malaysia,[11] who were at a table beside Bryant. He shot them at close range, killing both instantly. Bryant then fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor.[11] He fired a fourth shot that killed Sargent's girlfriend, 21-year-old Kate Elizabeth Scott, by hitting her in the back of the head.[11]

A 28-year-old New Zealand winemaker, Jason Winter, had been helping the busy caf staff.[11] As Bryant turned towards Winter's wife Joanne and their 15-month-old son Mitchell, Winter threw a serving tray at Bryant in an attempt to distract him. Joanne Winter's father pushed his daughter and grandson to the floor and under the table.[12]

44-year-old Anthony Nightingale stood up after the sound of the first shots, but had no time to move. Nightingale yelled "No, not here!" as Bryant pointed the weapon at him.[11] As Nightingale leaned forward, he was fatally shot through the neck and spine.[11]

The next table had held a group of ten friends,[11] but some had just left the table to return their meal trays and visit the gift shop. Bryant fired one shot that killed Kevin Vincent Sharp, 68.[11] The second hit Walter Bennett, passed through his body and struck Raymond John Sharp, 67, Kevin Sharp's brother, killing both.[11] The three had their backs towards Bryant, and were unaware what was happening. They at first believed someone was letting off firecrackers. One of them made the comment "That's not funny" after hearing the first few shots, not realising that they were real. The shots were all close range, with the gun at, or just inches away from, the back of their heads. Gerald Broome, Gaye Fidler and her husband John, were all struck by bullet fragments, but survived.[11]

Bryant then turned towards Tony and Sarah Kistan and Andrew Mills.[11] Both men stood up at the noise of the initial shots, but had no time to move away. Andrew Mills was shot in the head. Tony Kistan was also shot from about two metres away, also in the head, but had managed to push his wife away prior to being shot. Sarah Kistan was apparently not seen by Bryant, as she was under the table by that time.

Thelma Walker and Pamela Law were injured by fragments before being dragged to the ground by their friend, Peter Crosswell, as the three sheltered underneath the table.[11] Also injured by fragments from these shots was Patricia Barker.[11]

It was only then that the majority of the people in the caf began to realise what was happening and that the shots were not from a reenactment at the historical site. At this point, there was great confusion, with many people not knowing what to do, as Bryant was near the main exit.

Bryant moved just a few metres and began shooting at the table where Graham Colyer, Carolyn Loughton and her daughter Sarah were seated. Colyer was injured in the jaw, nearly choking to death on his own blood.[11] Sarah Loughton ran towards her mother, who had been moving between tables. Carolyn Loughton threw herself on top of her daughter.[11] Bryant shot Carolyn Loughton in the back; her eardrum was ruptured by the muzzle blast from the gun going off beside her ear.[11] She survived her injuries, but learned after she came out of surgery that, despite her efforts, Sarah had been fatally shot in the head.[11]

Bryant pivoted around and shot Mervyn Howard who was seated.[11] The bullet passed through him, through a window of the caf, and hit a table on the outside balcony.[11] Bryant quickly followed up with a shot to the neck of Mervyn Howard's wife, Mary.[11] Bryant then leaned over a vacant baby stroller and pointed the gun at her head and shot her a second time.[11] Both of the Howards' injuries were fatal.[11] Several people outside then realised there was real danger and began to run away.

Bryant was near the exit, preventing others from attempting to run past him and escape. Bryant moved across the cafe towards the gift shop area. There was an exit door through the display area to the outside balcony, but it was locked and could only be opened with a key. As Bryant moved, Robert Elliott stood up.[12] He was shot in the arm and head, left slumping against the fireplace but alive.[12]

All of these events, from the first bullet that killed Ng, took approximately 1530 seconds, during which twelve people were killed and ten more wounded.[11]

Bryant moved toward the gift shop area, giving many people time to hide under tables and behind shop displays. He fatally shot the two local women who worked in the gift shop, 17-year-old Nicole Burgess in the head, and 26-year-old Elizabeth Howard in the arm and chest.[12]

Coralee Lever and Vera Jary hid behind a hessian screen with others.[12] Lever's husband Dennis was shot in the head and died.[12] Pauline Masters, Vera Jary's husband Ron, and Peter and Carolyn Nash had attempted to escape through a locked door but could not.[12] Peter Nash lay down on top of his wife to hide her from Bryant.[12] Bryant moved into the gift shop area where people, trapped with nowhere to go, were crouched down in the corners.[12] Gwen Neander, trying to escape through the door, was shot in the head and killed.[12]

Bryant saw movement in the caf and moved near the front door. He shot at a table and hit Peter Crosswell, who was hiding under it, in the buttock.[12] Jason Winter, hiding in the gift shop, thought Bryant had left the building and made some comment about it to people near him before moving out into the open. Bryant saw him, with Winter stating "No, no" just prior to being shot, the bullet hitting his hand, neck and chest.[12] A second shot to the head proved fatal to Winter.[12] Fragments from those shots struck American tourist Dennis Olson, who had been hiding with his wife Mary and Winter.[12] Dennis Olson suffered fragment injuries to his hand, scalp, eye and chest, but survived.[12]

It is not clear what happened next, although at some point, Bryant reloaded his weapon. Bryant walked back to the caf and then returned to the gift shop, this time looking down to another corner of the shop where he found several people hiding in the corner, trapped. He walked up to them and shot Ronald Jary through the neck, then Peter Nash and Pauline Masters, killing all three.[12] He did not see Carolyn Nash, who was lying under her husband.[12] Bryant aimed his gun at an unidentified Asian man,[13] but the rifle's magazine was empty.[12] Bryant then quickly moved to the gift shop counter, where he reloaded his rifle, leaving an empty magazine on the service counter, and left the building.[12]

Twenty-nine rounds had been fired in the caf and gift shop areas in approximately 90120 seconds[citation needed]. Up to this time, Bryant had killed 20 people and injured 12.

During the caf shooting, some staff members had been able to escape through the kitchen and alert people outside. There were a number of coaches outside with lines of people, many of whom began to hide in the buses or in nearby buildings. Others did not understand the situation or were not sure where to go. Some people believed there was some sort of historical reenactment happening, and moved towards the area.

Ashley John Law, a site employee, was moving people away from the caf into the information centre when Bryant fired at him from 50100 metres (50110 yards) away. The bullets missed Law and hit some trees nearby.

Bryant then moved towards the coaches. One of the coach drivers, Royce Thompson, was shot in the back as he was moving along the passengers' side of a coach.[12] He fell to the ground and was able to crawl, then roll under the bus to safety, but he later died of his wounds.[12] Brigid Cook was trying to guide a number of people down between the buses and along the jetty area to cover. She had only been informed of what was happening and was worried that she was making a fool of herself in overreacting[citation needed]. Bryant then moved to the front of this bus and walked across to the next coach. People had quickly moved from this coach towards the back end, in an attempt to seek cover. As Bryant walked around it, he saw people scrambling to hide and shot at them. Brigid Cook was shot in the right thigh, causing the bone to fragment, the bullet lodging there.[12] A coach driver, Ian McElwee, was hit by fragments of Miss Cook's bone. Both were able to escape and survived.

Bryant then quickly moved around another coach and fired at another group of people. Winifred Aplin, running to get to cover behind another coach, was fatally shot in the side.[12] Another bullet grazed Yvonne Lockley's cheek, but she was able to enter one of the coaches to hide, and survived.[12]

Some people then started moving away from the car park towards the jetty. But someone shouted that Bryant was heading that way, so they tried to double back around the coaches to where Brigid Cook had been shot. Bryant doubled back to where Janet and Neville Quin, who owned a wildlife park on the east coast of Tasmania, were beginning to move toward Mason Cove and away from the buses.[12] Bryant shot Janet Quin in the back, where she fell, unable to move, near Royce Thompson.[12]

Bryant then continued along the car park as people tried to escape along the shore. Doug Hutchinson was attempting to get into a coach when he was shot in the arm.[12] He quickly ran around the front of the coach, and then along the shore to the jetty and hid.

Bryant then went to his vehicle, which was just past the coaches, and changed weapons to the FN FAL.[12] He fired at Denise Cromer, who was near the penitentiary ruins. Gravel flew up in front of her, as the bullets hit the ground. Bryant then got in his car and sat there for a few moments before getting out again and going back to the coaches. Some people were taking cover behind cars in the car park, but because of the elevation, Bryant could see them and the cars did not provide much cover. When they realised Bryant had seen them, they ran into the bush. He fired several shots. At least one hit a tree behind which someone was taking cover, but no one was hit.

Bryant moved back to the buses where Janet Quin lay injured from the earlier shot. Bryant shot her in the back, then left; she later died from her wounds.[12] Bryant then went onto one of the coaches and fired a shot at Elva Gaylard who was hiding, hitting her in the arm and chest and killing her.[12] At an adjacent coach, Gordon Francis saw what happened and moved down the aisle to try to shut the door of the coach he was on.[12] He was seen by Bryant and shot from the opposite coach. He survived, but needed four major operations.[12]

Neville Quin, husband of Janet, had escaped to the jetty area, but returned to look for his wife. He had been forced to leave her earlier after Bryant shot her. Bryant exited the coach and, spotting Quin, chased him around the coaches. Bryant fired at him at least twice before Quin ran onto a coach. Bryant entered the coach and pointed the gun at Neville Quin's face, saying, "No one gets away from me".[12] Mr Quin ducked when he realised Bryant was about to pull the trigger. The bullet missed his head but hit his neck, momentarily paralysing him.[12] After Bryant left, Quin managed to find his wife, although she later died in his arms.[12] Neville Quin was eventually taken away by helicopter and survived.

Bryant fired at James Balasko, an American citizen, hitting a nearby car. Balasko had been attempting to film the shooter. Many people, unable to use their parked cars, were hiding or running along Jetty Road and did not know where Bryant was because the gunfire was extremely loud and difficult to pinpoint. It was not clear that Bryant was mobile, nor was it even clear from which direction the shots were coming.

At this time, Bryant had killed 24 people and injured 18.

Bryant then got back into his car and left the car park. Witnesses say he was sounding the horn and waving, others say he was also firing. Bryant drove along Jetty Road towards the toll booth where a number of people were running away. Bryant passed by at least two people.

Ahead of him were Nanette Mikac and her children, Madeline, 3, and Alannah, 6.[14] Nanette was carrying Madeline, and Alannah was running slightly ahead. By this point, they had run approximately 600 metres (660yd) from the car park.[14] Bryant opened his door and slowed down. Mikac moved towards the car, apparently thinking he was offering them help in escaping. Several more people witnessed this from further down the road. Someone then recognised him as the gunman and yelled out "It's him!"[14] Bryant stepped out of the car, put his hand on Nanette Mikac's shoulder and told her to get on her knees.[14] She did so, saying, "Please don't hurt my babies".[14] Bryant shot her in the temple, killing her, before firing a shot at Madeline, which hit her in the shoulder, before shooting her fatally through the chest.[14] Bryant shot twice at Alannah, as she ran behind the tree, missing.[14] He then walked up, pressed the barrel of the gun into her neck and fired, killing her instantly.[14]

Bryant fired at some people hiding in a bush, but missed. Having seen the murders of the children, some people further up the road began running. They told drivers of cars coming down the road to go back. The people thought Bryant would head up the road, so instead they proceeded on foot down a dirt side road and hid in the bush. The cars reversed up the road to the toll booth.

Bryant drove up to the toll booth, where there were several vehicles, and blocked a BMW owned by Mary Rose Nixon.[14] Inside were Nixon, driver Russell James Pollard and passengers Helene and Robert Graham Salzmann.[14] An argument with Robert Salzmann ensued, and Bryant took out the FAL and shot Salzmann at point-blank range, killing him.[14] Pollard emerged from the BMW and went towards Bryant, who shot him in the chest, killing him.[14] More cars then arrived, but seeing this, the drivers were quickly able to reverse back up the road. Bryant then moved to the BMW and pulled Nixon and Helene Salzmann from the car and shot them dead, dragging their bodies onto the road.[14] Bryant transferred ammunition, handcuffs, the AR-15 rifle and a fuel container to the BMW. Mary Nixon, Russell Pollard, Helene Salzmann and Graham Salzmann, are the people Bryant was charged with killing at the toll booth.[15]

Another car then came towards the toll booth and Bryant shot at it.[14] The driver, Graham Sutherland, was hit with glass. A second bullet hit the driver's door. Sutherland quickly reversed back up the road and left. Bryant then got into the BMW, leaving behind his Volvo, including his Daewoo shotgun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Bryant had killed 31 and injured 19.

Graham Sutherland, who had just been shot at in his car, reversed back up the road and drove to the service station close by, where he tried to inform people what was happening. Bryant drove up to the service station and cut off a white Toyota Corolla that was attempting to exit onto the highway. Glenn Pears was driving, with girlfriend Zoe Hall in the passenger seat.[14] Bryant quickly exited the car with his rifle in hand and tried to pull Hall from the car. Pears got out of the car and approached Bryant. Bryant pointed the gun at Pears and pushed him backwards, eventually directing him into the now open boot of the BMW, locking Pears inside.[14]

Bryant then moved back to the passenger side of the Corolla as Hall attempted to climb over to the driver's seat.[14] Bryant raised his rifle and fired three shots, killing her.[14] Many people around the service station saw this and ran to hide in nearby bushland. The service station attendant told everyone to lie down and he locked the main doors. He grabbed his rifle, but by the time he could retrieve some ammunition and load his gun, Bryant was back in the BMW and gone. A police officer arrived several minutes later and then set out in pursuit of Bryant.

Zoe Hall was the 32nd victim killed.

As Bryant drove down to Seascape, he shot at a red Ford Falcon coming the other way, smashing its front windscreen.[14] Upon arriving at Seascape, he got out of his car. A Holden Frontera 4WD vehicle then approached Seascape along the road. Those in the vehicle saw Bryant with his gun, but believed him to be rabbit hunting and actually slowed down as they passed him. Bryant fired into the car; the first bullet hit the bonnet and broke the throttle cable.[14] He fired at least twice more into the car as it passed, breaking the windows. One bullet hit the driver, Linda White, in the arm.[14] The car was going downhill so it was able to roll down the road out of sight around a corner. White swapped seats with her boyfriend, Michael Wanders, who attempted to drive the car, but was unable to, because of the broken throttle cable.[14]

Another vehicle then drove down the road, carrying four people. It was not until they were almost adjacent to Bryant that they realised he was carrying a gun. Bryant shot at the car, smashing the windscreen. Douglas Horner was wounded by pieces of the windscreen.[14] The car proceeded ahead where White and Wanders tried to get in, but Horner did not realise the situation and drove on. When they saw that White had been shot, they came back and picked them up. Both parties then continued down to a local establishment called the Fox and Hound, where they called police.[14]

Yet another car drove past and Bryant shot at it, hitting the passenger, Susan Williams, in the hand.[14] The driver, Simon Williams, was struck by fragments.[14] The driver of another approaching vehicle saw this and reversed back up the road. Bryant also fired at this car, hitting it but not injuring anyone. Bryant then got back into the BMW and drove down the Seascape driveway to the house.

Sometime after he stopped, Bryant removed Pears from the boot and handcuffed him to a stair rail within the house.[14] At some point, he also set the BMW on fire with fuel.[14] He is believed to have arrived at the house by about 2:00p.m.

The only two police officers stationed on the peninsula (at Nubeena and Dunalley) were attending a fake emergency call at Saltwater River when they received a radio message at 1:32p.m. to attend Port Arthur and be on the look out for a yellow Volvo. They headed to Port Arthur in different cars and taking different routes. On the way, they were informed to look for a BMW and eventually they were informed of people at the Fox and Hound who had been shot.

One police officer then drove down the road past Seascape and past the disabled car of Linda White. He looked at it for a moment and continued down to the Fox and Hound. After he informed his partner, they proceeded back to Seascape. At about 2:00p.m., they were back at Seascape and could see the BMW on fire. At some point, they were fired upon, and eventually had to hide in a ditch at the side of the road. Bryant fired at them whenever they tried to escape, and they were not able to move from that position for many hours.

At around 2:10p.m., Bryant received a call from a woman from the ABC who had been ringing local businesses randomly trying to receive information about what was occurring. Bryant informed her his name was Jamie, and when she asked what was happening he replied "Lots of fun". Bryant then told her that if she phoned him again, he would shoot Glenn Pears.

At about 3:00p.m., shortly after forcing the police officers to take cover in the ditch, Bryant rang the local police station. The girlfriend of one of the police officers answered the phone. Bryant asked who she was and if she knew where her husband was. He again called himself Jamie. He asked if she knew whether or not her husband was okay, and when she did not answer, Bryant then told her he was okay and that he knew where her husband was.

Around 9:00p.m. a team from the Special Operations Group had arrived and were eventually able to assist in extracting the policemen from the ditch to safety under cover of darkness, riot shields and bulletproof jackets. They did not provide cover fire for fear of hitting hostages.

An 18-hour standoff ensued during which time the police talked over the phone to Bryant, still calling himself Jamie. He requested a helicopter, saying that he wanted to be flown to a plane and then onto Adelaide, South Australia. He said that if the helicopter arrived, he would release Pears and only keep Noelene Martin. Bryant could see the movements of SOG officers, and continually demanded their retreat each time they began to approach the house. As he appeared to have excellent awareness of the events unfurling around him, despite the pitch black of night, the police believed he had some kind of visual aid device; none was ever found, however. A man was spotted on the roof of an adjacent building at one point, believed to be Bryant. Later in the night, the cordless phone Bryant was using began to run low on batteries. Police tried unsuccessfully to get him to return the phone to the charger, but it went dead and there were no further communications.

Bryant was captured the following morning, when a fire started in the guest house, presumably set by Bryant. Bryant taunted police to "come and get him", but the police, believing the hostage was already dead, decided that the fire would eventually bring Bryant out. A large amount of ammunition had also ignited[citation needed] and was exploding sporadically as the house burned. Bryant eventually ran out of the house with his clothes on fire and tore off his burning clothes. He was arrested by the police, and taken to hospital for treatment.

It was found that Glenn Pears had been shot dead during or before the standoff and had died before the fire. The remains of the Martins were also found. It was also determined they had been shot, and that Noelene Martin had suffered blunt-force trauma. They both died before the fire; witness accounts of the gunfire, as presented to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, place the time of death of David and Noelene Martin as being approximately noon on 28 April. One weapon was found burnt in the house, and the other on the roof of the adjacent building where police believed they had seen Bryant the night before. Both weapons had suffered from massive chamber blast pressure, possibly from the heat of the house fire.

The following is a list of those killed in the Port Arthur massacre.[15]

Bryant was held in Royal Hobart Hospital under heavy police guard while awaiting trial. According to a police officer tasked with guarding him, at least two would-be vigilantes made unsuccessful applications to hospital security staff in an attempt to exact revenge.[16]

In his police interview, Bryant admitted to having carjacked the BMW, but claimed it only had three occupants and denied shooting any person. He also claimed he did not take the BMW from the vicinity of the toll booth and that his hostage was taken from the BMW. He said that he thought the man he took hostage must have died in the boot when the car exploded. He did not distinguish between the car fire and the later house fire. He also denied visiting Port Arthur on that day, despite vague identification by several people,[citation needed] including the toll attendant, of a man matching a similar description being at the diner. Such discrepancies indicate that Bryant was either lying during the police interview or was mentally incapable of recalling events accurately. Bryant also claimed that the guns found by police were not his, but admitted to owning the shotgun that was found with his passport back in his own car near the toll booth.

Initially Bryant pleaded not guilty to the 35 murders and did not provide a confession. However, Bryant changed his plea to guilty for a court hearing on 19 November 1996, where he was found guilty of all charges. The judge then ordered that all evidence for the case be sealed.

On 22 November, Bryant was sentenced to 35 sentences of life imprisonment plus 1,035 years (as a cumulative penalty for various charges including murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm for shooting at, and injuring, numerous people) in Hobart's Risdon Prison where he remains in solitary confinement and, apart from immediate family, is not permitted to have any visitors.[17] His prison papers indicate that he is never to be released. He continues to serve his term without possibility of parole. This is very rare in Australia, where the majority of murder sentences allow for the possibility of parole after a long prison term.

Australians reacted to the event with widespread shock and horror, and the political effects were significant and long-lasting. The federal government led state governments, some of which (notably Tasmania itself and Queensland) were opposed to new gun laws, to severely restrict the availability of firearms. While surveys showed up to 85% of Australians 'supported gun control',[citation needed] many people strongly opposed the new laws. Concern was raised within the Coalition Government that fringe groups such as the 'Ausi Freedom Scouts',[18] the Australian League of Rights and the Citizen Initiated Referendum Party, were exploiting voter anger to gain support. After discovering that the Christian Coalition and US National Rifle Association were supporting the gun lobby, the government and media cited their support, along with the moral outrage of the community to discredit the gun lobby as extremists.[19]

Under federal government co-ordination, all states and territories of Australia heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use by recreational shooters. The government initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million.[20] Media, activists, politicians and some family members of victims, notably Walter Mikac (who lost his wife and two children), spoke out in favour of the changes.

Much discussion has occurred as to the level of Bryant's mental health. It is generally accepted that he has a subnormal IQ (estimated at 66, and in the lowest 2% of his age group[21]) and at the time of the offences was in receipt of a Disability Support Pension on the basis of being mentally handicapped. Reports that he was schizophrenic were based on his mother's misinterpretation of psychiatric advice; Bryant had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia, nor any major depressive disorder.[citation needed] Media reports also detailed his odd behaviour as a child. However, he was able to drive a car and obtain a gun, despite lacking a gun licence or a driver's licence.[22][23][24] This was a matter which, in the public debate that followed, was widely regarded as a telling demonstration of the inadequacy of the nation's gun laws.

Bryant was assessed as fit to stand trial as a mentally competent adult.[citation needed] There were no indications that he could be regarded as criminally insane at the time of the offences; as he clearly knew what he was doing. See the M'Naghten rules for more information.

After Bryant's imprisonment, several other prisoners boasted of their intention to murder him in jail. For his own safety, Bryant was held in near-solitary confinement in a specially built cell from his sentencing in November 1996 until July 1997.

His motivation for the massacre remains a closely guarded secret,[23][24] known only to his lawyer, who is bound not to reveal confidences without his client's consent. The lawyer later released a book outlining that Bryant was motivated largely by the media reports of the then-recent Dunblane school massacre. From the moment he was captured, he continually wanted to know how many people he had killed and seemed impressed by the number. Bryant is only allowed to listen to music on a radio outside his cell, and is denied access to any news reports of his massacre. Photographers allowed in to take pictures of him in his prison cell were forced to destroy the film in his presence when the Governor found out.[25]

The Port Arthur tourist site reopened a few weeks later, and since then a new restaurant has been built. The former Broad Arrow Caf structure is now a "place for quiet reflection", with a monument and memorial garden dedicated at the site in April 2000.[26]

The massacre at Port Arthur created a kinship with the Scottish town of Dunblane, which had suffered a similar event, the Dunblane school massacre, only weeks previously. The two communities exchanged items to place at their respective memorials.

Paul Mullen, a forensic psychiatrist with extensive involvement following the string of massacres in Australia and New Zealand, attributes both the Port Arthur massacre and some of the earlier massacres to the copycat effect.[27] In this theory the saturation media coverage provides both instruction and perverse incentives for dysfunctional individuals to imitate previous crimes. In Tasmania, a coroner found that a report on the current affairs programme A Current Affair, a few months earlier had guided one suicide, and may have helped create the expectation of a massacre.[28][29] The coverage of the Dunblane massacre, in particular the attention on the perpetrator, is thought to have provided the trigger for Bryant to act.[30]

A substantial community fund was given for the victims of the Port Arthur massacre. The murder of Nanette Mikac and her daughters Alannah and Madeline inspired Dr Phil West of Melbourne, who had two girls similar in age to the murdered children, to set up a foundation in their memory. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation supports child victims of violence and runs a national anti-bullying programme.[31] It was launched by the Prime Minister on the first anniversary of the massacre.

In 2007, Tasmanian playwright Tom Holloway dealt with the massacre in his play Beyond the Neck.[32] Tasmanian composer Matthew Dewey also deals with these issues in his first symphony.[33][34]

See the rest here:
Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free ...

The term motivation is derived from the Latin verb movere (to move). The idea of movement is reflected in such commonsense ideas about motivation as something that gets us going, keeps us working, and helps us complete tasks. Yet there are many definitions of motivation and much disagreement over its precise nature. These differences in the nature and operation of motivation are apparent in the various theories we cover in this text. For now, we will say that motivation has been conceptualized in varied ways including inner forces, enduring traits, behavioral responses to stimuli, and sets of beliefs and affects.

Many early views linked motivation with inner forces: instincts, traits, volition, and will. Behavioral (conditioning) theories view motivation as an increased or continual level of responding to stimuli brought about by reinforcement (reward). Contemporary cognitive views postulate that individuals thoughts, beliefs, and emotions influence motivation.

Although there is disagreement about the precise nature of motivation, we offer a general definition of motivation that is consistent with the cognitive focus of this book on learners thoughts and beliefs and that captures the elements considered by most researchers and practitioners to be central to motivation:

Motivation is the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained.

Let us examine this definition in depth. Motivation is a process rather than a product. As a process, we do not observe motivation directly but rather we infer it from actions (e.g., choice of tasks, effort, persistence) and verbalizations (e.g., I really want to work on this).

Motivation involves goals that provide impetus for and direction to action. Cognitive views of motivation are united in their emphasis on the importance of goals. Goals may not be well formulated and may change with experience, but the point is that individuals are conscious of something that they are trying to attain or avoid.

Motivation requires activityphysical or mental. Physical activity entails effort, persistence, and other overt actions. Mental activity includes such cognitive actions as planning, rehearsing, organizing, monitoring, making decisions, solving problems, and assessing progress. Most activities that students engage in are geared toward attaining their goals.

Finally, motivated activity is instigated and sustained. Starting toward a goal is important and often difficult because it involves making a commitment and taking the first step. But motivational processes are critically important to sustain action. Many major goals are long term, such as earning a college degree, obtaining a good job, and saving money for retirement. Much of what we know about motivation comes from determining how people respond to the difficulties, problems, failures, and setbacks they encounter as they pursue long-term goals. Such motivational processes as expectations, attributions, emotions, and affects help people surmount difficulties and sustain motivation.

We now turn to a topic of critical importance to schoolingthe relation of motivation to learning and performance.

Keith Mitchells perceptions of his students exemplify our intuitive understanding of the role of motivation in classroom learning and performance. Motivation can affect both new learning and the performance of previously learned skills, strategies, and behaviors. Activities such as drills and review sessions involve performance of previously learned skills, but most class time is spent learning facts, beliefs, rules, concepts, skills, strategies, algorithms, and behaviors.

As an example of the effect of motivation on performance, suppose that Keith tells his class to complete some review material and that the students, being less than enthusiastic about this assignment, work lackadaisically. To boost students motivation, Keith announces that they will have free time as soon as they complete the assignment. Assuming that the students value free time, we would expect them to quickly finish their work.

Such performance effects often are dramatic, but the role of motivation during learning is equally important. Motivation can influence what, when, and how we learn (Schunk, 1995). Students motivated to learn about a topic are apt to engage in activities they believe will help them learn, such as attend carefully to the instruction, mentally organize and rehearse the material to be learned, take notes to facilitate subsequent studying, check their level of understanding, and ask for help when they do not understand the material (Zimmerman, 2000). Collectively, these activities improve learning.

In contrast, students unmotivated to learn are not apt to be as systematic in their learning efforts. They may be inattentive during the lesson and not organize or rehearse material. Note taking may be done haphazardly or not at all. They may not monitor their level of understanding or ask for help when they do not understand what is being taught. It is little wonder that learning suffers.

A key point is that motivation bears a reciprocal relation to learning and performance; that is, motivation influences learning and performance and what students do and learn influences their motivation (Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 1995). When students attain learning goals, goal attainment conveys to them that they possess the requisite capabilities for learning. These beliefs motivate them to set new challenging goals. Students who are motivated to learn often find that once they do they are intrinsically motivated to continue their learning.

Excerpt from Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications, by D.H. Schunk, P.R. Pintrich, J. Meece, 2008 edition, p. 4 - 5.

______ 2008, Merrill, an imprint of Pearson Education Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The reproduction, duplication, or distribution of this material by any means including but not limited to email and blogs is strictly prohibited without the explicit permission of the publisher.

Read more from the original source:
Motivation | Education.com

Motivation: A General Overview of Theories

Shiang-Kwei Wang Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia

Review of Motivation

A goal is "something that the person wants to achieve" (Locke & Latham, 1990, p.2). A teacher's goal might be " to help students understand the concept of an ellipse within one week;" A typical goal for a student could be "earning an 'A' in foreign language class."

Long-term goals keep behavior directed toward an ultimate target, while short-term goals are the steppingstones to the long-term goals (Alderman 1999). Bandura and Schunk's research (Bandura & Schunk, 1981) on proximal motivation indicated that this sub-dividing of accomplishable short-term goals would help students to progress at a more rapid pace. They concluded that self-motivation can best be created and sustained by attainable sub-goals that lead to the larger goals.

An example of goal formations might be:

Expressions such as "intend to" or "desire to" are often used in setting goals. For example, "I intend to run a marathon this year." Goal setting is simply defined as "a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve" (Alderman 1999).

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs stresses personal growth and development. Goals are set to satisfy needs. Psychologist Abraham Maslow developed the Hierarchy of Needs to classify human needs into five general categories. Those needs that are higher in the hierarchy are considered more important, and cannot be satisfied unless the needs below them in the hierarchy are satisfied first. Understanding Maslow's Hierarchy of needs can help explain differences in behavior between individuals.

Caption: The Flash animation above depicts Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He used it to explain human motivation. He identified 5 levels of need, physical needs, safety/security needs, belongingness/love needs, esteem needs, and self actualization. As these various needs are met an individual moves through the hierarchy. Each level is subordinate to the level above it and the needs are constantly changing. In this illustration a small human figure is depicted with a bright blue sky, white fluffy clouds, green grass and flowers that are blooming. The hierarchy, only a small portion or the first level is visible, will be represented by a triangle shaped mountain. As the human starts to climb the mountain, there is only the first level of the hierarchy, physical needs, showing. Physical needs are food, water and shelter represented by bread, butter, a droplet of water and the sun. The human climbs this level and the second level of needs, safety and security, appears. Safety and security needs are met when there is protection from physical and emotional harm. These needs are represented by the icons 'no violence' and 'peace.' As the human climbs up this level of needs, the next level, belongingness and love needs, appears. The need to feel loved and accepted by others is represented by a heart (for love) and a home where family and friends provide support. Continuing the climb, the human reaches the esteem needs level. The need to be respected and to have confidence is illustrated with a smiling face and a human with upraised arms. The smile and celebration of victory are possible because of the lower level of needs being met. The human climbs to the pinnacle of the mountain, the level of self actualization needs. Self actualization means individuals need to be true to their own nature and seek self fulfillment. These needs are represented by an icon showing the 'thumbs up' symbol, signifying that everything is OK, the human is able to live at full potential and be creative. The human climber in this animation is depicted on top of the mountain (the hierarchy of needs) with a crown of victory. Victory at meeting the Hierarchy of Needs means the climber is poised to learn and excel. This Flash animation was design and developed by Imei Ma, Jo Albert-Hill and Kevin Powell. (2004).

A sub-goal does not imply an easier goal. Locke & Latham (1990) suggested that more difficult goals will enhance performance level, especially when the task is performed voluntarily. Setting up rigid and realistic goals based on the learner's competence, therefore, is more effective than setting easy goals.

Feedback on learning or training progress helps learners know if their goals are being met, and if not, how to improve achievement of goals. Bandura (1993) suggested that positive feedback enhances motivation, while negative feedback that emphasizes deficiencies will lower the self-efficacy of learners.

According to Ames' study (1988), when performance goals are involved, there is a concern with having one's ability judged. Success is evidence of ability, shown by outperforming others, or by achieving success with little effort. With a mastery goal, importance is attached to developing new skills. The process of learning itself is valued, and the attainment of mastery is seen as dependent on effort.

Here is an example comparing mastery and performance goals:

Mastery goal: Understanding the class materials is more important than earning a high grade, and that's why I work hard to learn. My performance is better than it was at the beginning of the semester.

Performance goal: I want to avoid mistakes so I can get a good grade. That's the reward for studying hard; my performance is better than other students.

The positive cognitive effect on learners adopting mastery goals has been verified in many research studies (Pintrich, 1996, p. 241).

Ames (1992) created a matrix to present the classroom structure and instructional strategies supporting a mastery goal as shown below:

Source: Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, V. 84, N.3, p. 261-271.

Self-efficacy affects some of the factors that predict motivation. According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is a self-judgment of one's ability to perform a task in a specific domain. However, a high degree of self-efficacy in one domain does not necessarily transfer to other areas of endeavor. High self-efficacy positively affects performance; this good performance will in turn enhance self-efficacy .

Bandura (1997) identified four phenomena that affect self-efficacy:

Mastery experience is one's personal experience with success or failure. For example, the positive experience of a good performance on the previous math exam, will influence the perception of one's ability in math.

Self-efficacy can be affected by observing the experiences of others. Students who observe a model successfully perform in a threatening situation are more likely to develop the expectation that they can acquire the same skill (Alderman, 1999). The learners can imitate their models' skills, or copy the strategies that the models use.

Learners can be motivated by using verbal feedback to convince or encourage them to accomplish their tasks. For example, simply telling students, "you can do it" is a commonly used strategy. However, instructors should be conscious of the messages that they use. Bandura pointed out that negative messages have an even greater effect on lowering efficacy expectations than do positive messages to increase it.

Anxiety, nervousness, rapid heart rate, sweating; these symptoms often occur when learners face challenges that require competence to overcome. Such physical or mental states reflect learner perceptions of their self-efficacy; these in turn affect their performance.

There are various means of strengthening self-efficacy.

Feedback: Encouragement and in-depth, informative feedback from teachers are important influence on self-efficacy. The teachers should also emphasize the rationale of why some strategies that the learners use are successful and why some fail.

Model: Exposing learners to an non-expert model (peer model) conquering the challenges successfully can help learners increase their motivation and self-efficacy. Another approach to enhance self-efficacy is learners observing the expert model solving problems with specific strategies or skills.

Successful experience: It is the teachers' responsibility to help learners achieve academic success by providing challenging, yet attainable tasks . Successful experience is the most important source of fostering self-efficacy.

Caption: This flash animation illustrates the journey of a teacher and student as the student's self-efficacy increases. Sammy has low self-esteem, but his teacher sees a teachable moment in his desire to act and sing. She employs verbal persuasion with positive statements and peer modeling by having Sammy observe another successful classmate who had the same fears. She provides Sammy with specific feedback on his performance, and Sammy has a successful experience in his tryout as a result. By Jim Stewart, Jill Weldon, Celeste Buckhalter-Pittman, and Holly Frilot (2004).

"Why did I successfully accomplish this task?"

"Why did Jack fail math?"

The answers to these questions reflect personal beliefs about the causes of results. Attribution theory is the study of how individuals explain events in their lives (Bruning, Schraw & Ronning, 1999, p.137). Knowing learners' attributional beliefs can help instructors to address the value of effort.

Weiner (1979) proposed that attribution can be explained through a three-dimensional classification of causality, with each class expressed in a continuum linking extremes. These three categories of attribution are:

Causation for events may be placed in a continuum ranging from conditions completely within to those completely outside of the individual's influence. Locus of control refers to the degree to which results are due to factors inside (internal locus of control) or outside (external locus of control) an individual. For instance, factors such as mood and ability are internal causes; luck and teacher bias are external causes.

Stability refers to an unchanging cause . Consider the following statement: "I'm good at playing guitar because I've practiced for more than a year". In this case, the ability to play guitar is a stable cause for this person. Or this: "I got an A in math this time because the test was very easy. Almost everyone made an A." Such a belief suggests that the successful performance resulted from chance; the easy test is an inconsistent or unstable cause.

Controllability refers to those factors that can be controlled to influence results. Skill and competence are classified as controllable, while luck and mood are classified as uncontrollable.

From a review of attributional theories, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) generated a model to present the attributional process. This model provides the effect of attribution on motivational, affective, and behavioral consequences. The incidents can be classified as either environmental or personal factors. An individual will attribute these incidents to the perceived causes and different causal dimensions. These causes will affect an individual's psychological consequences and influence behaviors. The overview of the general attributional model can help in gaining an understanding of the attributional process.

Ability Effort Luck Task difficulty Teacher Mood Health Fatigue, etc.

Locus Control

Self-efficacy Affect

Persistence Level of effort Achievement

Source: Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Attributional processes. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 103-152

An Example

Allen is a gifted student, and usually performs well on exams. Last week, however, he failed a physics exam. Will he still invest his time in studying physics, and enjoy doing it?

In Allen's case, he studied hard but performed poorly on the physics exam; the majority of the class failed the exam as well. After Allen had learned the class average for the exam and received feedback from the teacher (specific information), he attributed his failure to task difficulty rather than of a lack of effort. Thus, the cause of his failure is unstable, external, and uncontrollable. Given this causal information, his self-efficacy in physics would not decrease. He would continue to expect success, and to study physics.

Some independent learners require little attention from their teachers. They know how to adopt learning strategies, they understand their competencies in specific domains, and will commit to their academic goals. These students have volition and can be described as "self-regulated" learners. Zimmerman (1989) pointed out that students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning processes. Three assumptions are involved in the definition: self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy perceptions of skill performance, and a commitment to academic goals.

Self-regulated learning is determined by personal, environmental, and behavioral events:

Personal influences--students' knowledge and goals Behavioral influences--self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction Environmental influences--verbal persuasion and modeling

A vision of a possible self is the first step in developing self-regulation (Alderman, 1999). Possible selves are how one "images" the self and the future. Possible selves represent individuals' ideas of what they might become, what they would like to become (positive possible selves), and especially what they are afraid of becoming (negative possible selves) (Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). Examples of positive possible selves might be earning a master's degree, becoming a good baseball player, or getting an "A" on a math exam. Negative possible selves could include fear of becoming homeless or failing a physics exam. Developing a positive view of the future helps learners enhance their motivation and commitment to academically supportive personal goals.

In his review of the literature, Alderman (1999) indicated that the formation of possible selves is influenced by developmental factors, sociocultural factors, attributional history and self-efficacy judgments. For example: John has an interest in media. He is influenced by his music teacher and decides to become a keyboard player. John tries to enhance his keyboard playing skills; his playing continually improves with practice. Encouragement from others and the positive experience of playing the keyboard increase his self-efficacy, which helps him to develop a concrete goal for the future. John attributes his success to internal, controllable, and stable causes. He stresses the value of effort over other factors.

Volition is one of the most important factors contributing to self-regulation. According to Corno (1994, p. 229), volition is "the tendency to maintain focus and effort toward goals despite potential distractions". For some reason, some learners overcome barriers and difficulties to ensure that academic goals are reached.

Corno and Zimmerman (1994) developed a volitional control activities list as below:

Activities in Volitional Enhancement Curriculum

Source:Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 229-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Self-regulation is not a fixed characteristic of learners. Employing appropriate strategies can help learners to develop self-regulation and volition to learn. Zimmerman (1998) designed a table to compare experts' methods of self-regulation across different disciplines. Familiarity with these self-regulated methods is not only useful in learning, but once mastered, the techniques can be useful throughout life to function effectively in informal contexts.

Source: Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), p.73-86.

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988) isolated the effective self-regulated learning strategies shown in the table below:

Source: Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning., Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), p. 337.

Click Here for a short video that clarifies the different strategies. In this scenario, a student named Janice is using self-regulated learning strategies to help motivate her to complete her assignment, a literature review. The strategies are prefaced with a brief definition of the strategies being used and followed by Janice verbalizing her thoughts. The strategies being used are: Self-evaluating, Organizing and Transforming, Goal-setting and Planning, Seeking Information, Keeping Records and Monitoring, Environmental Structuring, Self-consequating, Rehearsing and Memorizing, Seeking Social Assistance and Reviewing Records. She concludes her thought process with a statement indicating that the learning strategies have successfully motivated her. By Eun Ju Jung, Suhwa Lee, and Anita Zgambo (2007).

Result:

In general, self-regulated learners are aware of effective learning strategies for enhancing learning performance.

People often choose to invest considerable time in activities without apparent reward. The cause underlying such behaviors is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as engagement in actions for their own sake with the only tangible benefit being outcomes such as pleasure, learning, satisfaction, interest, or challenge. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation occurs when learners engage in activities for the purpose of attaining rewards, such as praise or high grades (Alderman, 1999). Engaging in behavior to avoid punishment is also regarded as an extrinsic motivation.

Some researchers believe that intrinsic motivation can be enhanced through the use of particular strategies, and have sought a correlation between the design of specific educational materials and an increase in learning performance. Thus far, studies have found no evidence to establish that the interest value of material is a determinant--as opposed to a consequence--of learning (Parker & Lepper, 1992). However, some useful strategies that can promote intrinsic motivation have been proposed.

Lepper and Hodell (1989) suggest four methods for enhancing intrinsic motivation:

Challenge: Design challenging activities which convey the message to the learners that they have competitive skills. It is essential to find a balance between learner competence and the difficulty of the goals. Overly difficult goals are unlikely to increase learner motivation to continue the task if the learners perceive they will never reach the goal. Likewise, goals that are too easily attained do not sufficiently challenge learners to encourage skill development.

Curiosity: Activities that create disequilibria for the learners can elicit curiosity. Presenting discrepant ideas--those that conflict with their prior knowledge or beliefs--can prompt students to seek information that will resolve the discrepancy. As with challenge, moderate discrepancies are most effective because they are easily incorporated into an individual's mental framework; large discrepancies may be rapidly discounted (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996, p.277).

Control: A sense of responsibility will be better fostered in learners if they are allowed to make meaningful choices in the learning process.

Fantasy: The design of simulations and games that involve fantasy can increase intrinsic motivation.

Csikszentmihalyi (1985) used flow theory to explain cases in which subjects describe their experiences as intrinsically rewarding. When individuals engage in activities and lose awareness of time and space, they are involved with flow experiences.

Activities are enjoyable when challenges and skills are matched. Csikszentmihalyi's flow model can explain the phenomenon.

Caption: The Flash animation above depicts how flow works. There are two buttons; one is to increase challenge and the other is to decrease challenge. The animation begins in a state of flow. If you click on the increase challenge button, the status changes to 'Anxiety.' If you click decrease challenge you return to a state of flow. If you click decrease challenge again, the status changes to 'Boredom.' This animation was created on November 25, 2002, but I have lost the information about who created it. I apologize to the authors, but I wanted to make sure that your work was included in the book.

Assume an individual begins to play an instructional game. If the difficulty of the game increases with time, and the player can match its progress, he will move to position C (the flow state in the middle of the ladder above), representing a more complex experience. If the game is too easily won and the player makes no progress in his competence, he will become bored with the activity and move to position B1 (the area at the bottom of the ladder). If the game is too difficult to continue, he will soon move to position B2 (the area at the top of the ladder) and give up because he expects to continue to be unsuccessful..

Want to have the flow experience?

You can tell if you are in the flow experience when you are in the flow status. Try the game "Color Linez" designed by Olga Demina. This game was a present to Olga's brother on his birthday.

Download Color Linez! (PC only) (save the file to your disk. Then double click the file name to play).

Did you have a flow experience within 5 minutes? Why did you play this game? Do you think the challenge matches your skill?

Click here to play Motivation Jeopardy! Caption: This is a Jeopardy game that will review your knowledge of motivation. Open the file with Microsoft PowerPoint. Created by Heather Abner, Kelly Earnest, and Jennifer Harbuck (2006).

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Goals and goal setting. Motivation for achievement: possibilities for teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Goals in the classroom: students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), p. 261-271

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Bandura, A., (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A., (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, p. 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 229-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1985). Emergent motivation and the evolution of the self. In D. Kleiber and M. H. Maehr (Eds.), Motivation in Adulthood (pp. 93-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, PP 73-105). San Diego: Academic Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Markus, H. & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In L. Pervin (Ed.)., Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. (pp. 211-241). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum

Motivation http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/motivation/motivate.html

Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children's learning and motivation: making learning more fun., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625-633.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). The role of goals and goal orientation. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences., Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25.

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3).

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning., Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), p. 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), p.73-86.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, p. 284-290.

By Lindsey Elrod, Titus Martin & Clayton Shaw (2007)

Go here to see the original:
Motivation - Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and ...

Work motivation "is a set of energetic forces[dubious discuss] that originate both within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration"[1] Understanding what motivates an organization's employees is central to the study of IO psychology. Motivation is a person's internal disposition to be concerned with and approach positive incentives and avoid negative incentives. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment.[2] While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Results from a recent 2012 study, which examined age-related differences in work motivation, suggest a "shift in people's motives" rather than a general decline in motivation with age. That is, it seemed that older employees were less motivated by extrinsically related features of a job, but more by intrinsically rewarding job features.[3]

It is important for organizations to understand and to structure the work environment to encourage productive behaviors and discourage those that are unproductive given work motivation's role in influencing workplace behavior and performance.[4][5] There is general consensus that motivation involves three psychological processes: arousal, direction, and intensity. Arousal is what initiates action. It is fueled by a person's need or desire for something that is missing from their lives at a given moment, either totally or partially. Direction refers to the path employees take in accomplishing the goals they set for themselves. Finally, intensity is the vigor and amount of energy employees put into this goal-directed work performance. The level of intensity is based on the importance and difficulty of the goal. These psychological processes result in four outcomes. First, motivation serves to direct attention, focusing on particular issues, people, tasks, etc. It also serves to stimulate an employee to put forth effort. Next, motivation results in persistence, preventing one from deviating from the goal-seeking behavior. Finally, motivation results in task strategies, which as defined by Mitchell & Daniels, are "patterns of behavior produced to reach a particular goal."[5]

A number of various theories attempt to describe employee motivation within the discipline of IO psychology. Most of these theories can be divided into the four broad categories of need-based, cognitive process, behavioral, and job-based.[4]

Need-based theories of motivation focus on an employee's drive to satisfy a variety of needs through their work. These needs range from basic physiological needs for survival to higher psychoemotional needs like belonging and self-actualization.

Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943) was applied to offer an explanation of how the work environment motivates employees. In accordance with Maslow's theory, which was not specifically developed to explain behavior in the workplace, employees strive to satisfy their needs in a hierarchical order.[4]

At the most basic level, an employee is motivated to work in order to satisfy basic physiological needs for survival, such as having enough money to purchase food. The next level of need in the hierarchy is safety, which could be interpreted to mean adequate housing or living in a safe neighborhood. The next three levels in Maslow's theory relate to intellectual and psycho-emotional needs: love and belonging, esteem (which refers to competence and mastery), and finally the highest order need, self-actualization.

Although Maslow's theory is widely known, in the workplace it has proven to be a poor predictor of employee behavior.[4] Maslow theorized that people will not seek to satisfy a higher level need until their lower level needs are met. There has been little empirical support for the idea that employees in the workplace strive to meet their needs only in the hierarchical order prescribed by Maslow.

Building on Maslow's theory, Clayton Alderfer (1959) collapsed the levels in Maslow's theory from five to three: existence, relatedness and growth. This theory, called the ERG theory, does not propose that employees attempt to satisfy these needs in a strictly hierarchical manner. Empirical support for this theory has been mixed.[4]

Atkinson & McClelland's Need for Achievement Theory is the most relevant and applicable need-based theory in the IO psychologist's arsenal. Unlike other need-based theories, which try to interpret every need, Need for Achievement allows the IO psychologist to concentrate research into a tighter focus. Studies show those who have a high need for achievement prefer moderate levels of risk, seek feedback, and are likely to immerse themselves in their work. Achievement motivation can be broken down into three types:

Because most individuals have a combination of these three types (in various proportions), an understanding of these achievement motivation characteristics can be a useful assistance to management in job placement, recruitment, etc.[6]

The theory is referred to as Need for Achievement because these individuals are theorized to be the most effective employees and leaders in the workplace. These individuals strive to achieve their goals and advance in the organization. They tend to be dedicated to their work and strive hard to succeed. Such individuals also demonstrate a strong desire for increasing their knowledge and for feedback on their performance, often in the form of performance appraisal .[4]

The Need for Achievement is in many ways similar to the need for mastery and self-actualization in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and growth in the ERG theory. The achievement orientation has garnered more research interest as compared to the need for affiliation or power.

Equity Theory is derived from social exchange theory. It explains motivation in the workplace as a cognitive process of evaluation, whereby the employee seeks to achieve a balance between inputs or efforts in the workplace and the outcomes or rewards received or anticipated.

In particular, Equity Theory research has tested employee sentiments regarding equitable compensation. Employee inputs take the form of work volume and quality, performance, knowledge, skills, attributes and behaviors. The company-generated outcomes include rewards such as compensation, praise and advancement opportunities. The employee compares his inputs relative to outcomes; and, then, extrapolating to the social context, the employee compares his input/outcome ratio with the perceived ratios of others. If the employee perceives an inequity, the theory posits that the employee will adjust his behavior to bring things into balance.

Equity Theory has proven relevance in situations where an employee is under-compensated. If an employee perceives that he is undercompensated, he can adjust his behavior to achieve equilibrium in several different ways:

If the employee is able to achieve a ratio of inputs to outputs that he perceives to be equitable, then the employee will be satisfied. The employee's evaluation of input-to-output ratios and subsequent striving to achieve equilibrium is an ongoing process.

While it has been established that Equity Theory provides insight into scenarios of under-compensation, the theory has generally failed to demonstrate its usefulness in understanding scenarios of overcompensation.[7] In this way, it could be said Equity Theory is more useful in describing factors that contribute to a lack of motivation rather than increasing motivation in the workplace. Concepts of organizational justice later expanded upon the fundamentals of Equity Theory and pointed to the importance of fairness perceptions in the workplace.

There are four fairness perceptions applied to organizational settings:

When workplace processes are perceived as fair, the benefits to an organization can be high. In such environments, employees are more likely to comply with policies even if their personal outcome is less than optimal. When workplace policies are perceived as unfair, risks for retaliation and related behaviors such as sabotage and workplace violence can increase.[5]

Leventhal (1980) described six criteria for creating fair procedures in an organization. He proposed that procedures and policies should be:[5]

According to Vroom's Expectancy Theory, an employee will work smarter and/or harder if he believes his additional efforts will lead to valued rewards. Expectancy theory explains this increased output of effort by means of the equation

F = E ( I V)

whereas: F (Effort or Motivational Force) = Effort the employee will expend to achieve the desired performance; E (Expectancy) = Belief that effort will result in desired level of performance; I (Instrumentality) = Belief that desired level of performance will result in desired outcome; V (Valence) = Value of the outcome to the employee[4]

Expectancy theory has been shown to have useful applications in designing a reward system. If policies are consistently, clearly and fairly implemented, then the instrumentality would be high. If the rewards are substantial enough to be meaningful to an employee, then the valence would be also considered high. A precursor to motivation is that the employee finds the reward(s) attractive. In some instances, the reward or outcome might inadvertently be unattractive, such as increased workload or demanding travel that may come with a promotion. In such an instance, the valence might be lower for individuals who feel worklife balance is important, for example.

Expectancy theory posits employee satisfaction to be an outcome of performance rather than the cause of performance. However, if a pattern is established whereas an employee understands his performance will lead to certain desired rewards, an employee's motivation can be strengthened based on anticipation.[8] If the employees foresee a high probability that they can successfully carry out a desired behavior, and that their behavior will lead to a valued outcome, then they will direct their efforts toward that end.

Expectancy theory has been shown to have greater validity in research in within-subject designs rather than between-subjects designs. That is, it is more useful in predicting how an employee might choose among competing choices for their time and energy, rather than predicting the choices two different employees might make.[4]

An IO psychologist can assist an employer in designing task-related goals for their employees that are

in hopes of rousing tunnel vision focus in the employees.[9] Following S.M.A.R.T criteria is also suggested.

Studies have shown both feedback from the employer and self-efficacy (belief in one's capabilities to achieve a goal) within the employee must be present for goal-setting to be effective.[10] However, because of the tunnel vision focus created by goal-setting theory, several studies have shown this motivational theory may not be applicable in all situations. In fact, in tasks that require creative on-the-spot improvising, goal-setting can even be counterproductive.[11] Furthermore, because clear goal specificity is essential to a properly designed goal-setting task, multiple goals can create confusion for the employee and the end result is a muted overall drive.[12] Despite its flaws, Goal-setting Theory is arguably the most dominant theory in the field of IO psychology; over one thousand articles and reviews published in just over thirty years.[5][13]

Locke suggested several reasons why goals are motivating: they direct attention, lead to task persistence and the development of task strategies for accomplishing the goal. In order for a goal to be motivating, the employee or work group must first accept the goal. While difficult goals can be more motivating, a goal still needs to appear achievable, which in turn will lead to greater goal acceptance. The person or group should have the necessary skills and resources to achieve the goal, or goal acceptance could be negatively impacted. Specific goals that set a performance expectation are more motivating than those that are vague. Similarly, more proximal goals have greater motivation impact than those that are very long range or distal goals.[4]

There are three types of factors that influence goal commitment:

From: Psychology and Work Today by Schultz and Schultz.[14]

Feedback while the employee or group is striving for the goal is seen as crucial. Feedback keeps employees on track and reinforces the importance of the goal as well as supporting the employees in adjusting their task strategies.

Goal-setting Theory has strong empirical support dating back thirty years. However, there are some boundary conditions that indicate in some situations, goal-setting can be detrimental to performance on certain types of tasks. Goals require a narrowing of one's focus, so for more complex or creative tasks, goals can actually inhibit performance because they demand cognitive resources. Similarly, when someone is learning a new task, performance-related goals can distract from the learning process. During the learning process, it may be better to focus on mastering the task than achieving a particular result.[5] Finally, too many goals can become distracting and counterproductive, especially if they conflict with one another.

Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory is another cognitive process theory that offers the important concept of self-efficacy for explaining employee's level of motivation relative to workplace tasks or goals. Self-efficacy is an individual's belief in his or her ability to achieve results in a given scenario. Empirically, studies have shown a strong correlation between self-efficacy and performance. The concept has been extended to group efficacy, which is a group's belief that it can achieve success with a given task or project.[5]

Self-efficacy is seen to mediate important aspects of how an employee undertakes a given task, such as the level of effort and persistence.[4] An employee with high self-efficacy is confident that effort he or she puts forth has a high likelihood of resulting in success. In anticipation of success, an employee is willing to put forth more effort, persist longer, remain focused on the task, seek feedback and choose more effective task strategies.

The antecedents of self-efficacy may be influenced by expectations, training or past experience and requires further research. It has been shown that setting high expectations can lead to improved performance, known as the Pygmalion effect. Low expectations can lower self-efficacy and is referred to as the golem effect.[5]

Relative to training, a mastery-oriented approach has been shown to be an effective way to bolster self-efficacy. In such an approach, the goal of training is to focus on mastering skills or tasks rather than focusing on an immediate performance-related outcome. Individuals who believe that mastery can be achieved through training and practice are more likely to develop greater self-efficacy than those who see mastery as a product of inherent talent than is largely immutable.[5]

The behavioral approach to workplace motivation is known as Organizational Behavioral Modification. This approach applies the tenets of behaviorism developed by B.F. Skinner to promote employee behaviors that an employer deems beneficial and discourage those that are not.

Any stimulus that increases the likelihood of a behavior increasing is a reinforcer. An effective use of positive reinforcement would be frequent praise while an employee is learning a new task. An employee's behavior can also be shaped during the learning process if approximations of the ideal behavior are praised or rewarded. The frequency of reinforcement is an important consideration. While frequent praise during the learning process can be beneficial, it can be hard to sustain indefinitely.[4]

A variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement, where the frequency of reinforcement varies unpredictably, can be also be highly effective if used in instances where it is ethical to do so. Providing praise on a variable-ratio schedule would be appropriate, whereas paying an employee on an unpredictable variable-ratio schedule would not be.

Compensation and other reward programs provide behavioral reinforcement, and if carefully crafted, can provide powerful incentives to employees. Behavioral principles can also be used to address undesirable behaviors in the workplace, but punishment should be used judiciously. If overused, punishment can negatively impact employee's perception of fairness in the workplace.[4]

In general, the less time that elapses between a behavior and its consequence, the more impactful a consequence is likely to be.

The job-based theories hold that the key to motivation is within an employee's job itself. Generally, these theories say that jobs can be motivating by their very design. This is a particularly useful view for organizations, because the practices set out in the theories can be implemented more practically in an organization. Ultimately, according to the job-based theories, the key to finding motivation through one's job is being able to derive satisfaction from the job content.[4]

It is impossible to discuss motivation and job attributes in IO psychology without crediting Frederick Herzberg's MotivatorHygiene Theory (also referred to as Herzberg's Two-factor theory). Published in 1968, Herzberg's MotivatorHygiene Theory holds that the content of a person's job is the primary source of motivation. In other words, he argued against the commonly held belief that money and other compensation is the most effective form of motivation to an employee. Instead, Herzberg posed that high levels of what he dubbed hygiene factors (pay, job security, status, working conditions, fringe benefits, job policies, and relations with co-workers) could only reduce employee dissatisfaction (not create satisfaction). Motivation factors (level of challenge, the work itself, responsibility, recognition, advancement, intrinsic interest, autonomy, and opportunities for creativity) however, could stimulate satisfaction within the employee, provided that minimum levels of the hygiene factors were reached. For an organization to take full advantage of Herzberg's theory, they must design jobs in such a way that motivators are built in, and thus are intrinsically rewarding. While the MotivationHygiene Theory was the first to focus on job content, it has not been strongly supported through empirical studies.[4] Frederick Herzberg also came up with the concept of job enrichment, which expands jobs to give employees a greater role in planning, performing, and evaluating their work, thus providing the chance to satisfy their motivators needs. some suggested ways would be to remove some management control, provide regular and continuously feedback. Proper job enrichment, therefore, involves more than simply giving the workers extra tasks to perform. It means expanding the level of knowledge and skills needed to perform the job.[15]

Shortly after Herzberg's Two-factor theory, Hackman and Oldham contributed their own, more refined, job-based theory; Job characteristic theory (JCT). JCT attempts to define the association between core job dimensions, the critical psychological states that occur as a result of these dimensions, the personal and work outcomes, and growth-need strength. Core job dimensions are the characteristics of a person's job. The core job dimensions are linked directly to the critical psychological states. The Job Characteristics Model (JCM), as designed by Hackman and Oldham attempts to use job design to improve employee intrinsic motivation. They show that any job can be described in terms of five key job characteristics:[16][17]

According to the JCT, an organization that provides workers with sufficient levels of skill variety (using different skills and talents in performing work), task identity (contributing to a clearly identifiable larger project), and task significance (impacting the lives or work of other people) is likely to have workers who feel their work has meaning and value. Sufficiently high levels of autonomy (independence, freedom and discretion in carrying out the job) will inspire the worker to feel responsibility for the work; and sufficiently high levels of Task Feedback (receiving timely, clear, specific, detailed, actionable information about the effectiveness of his or her job performance) will inspire the worker to feel the organization is authentically interested in helping to foster his/her professional development and growth. The combined effect of these psychological states results in desired personal and work outcomes: intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, performance quality, low absenteeism, and low turnover rate.[4][16][17]

Lastly, the glue of this theory is the "growth-need strength" factor which ultimately determines the effectiveness of the core job dimensions on the psychological states, and likewise the effectiveness of the critical psychological states on the affective outcomes.[10] Further analysis of Job Characteristics Theory can be found in the Work Design section below.

Hackman and Oldman created the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) which measures three parts of their theory.

JDS is the most frequently and commonly used tool to measure job and work design. JDS is a self-report which has small detailed phrases for the different job characteristics. An employee will be asked to fill out the JDS and rate how precise each statement describes their job. [18]

A theory based in self-efficacy, Self Regulation is "A theory of motivation based on the setting of goals and the receipt of accurate feedback that is monitored to enhance the likelihood of goal attainment"[19] It is presumed that people consciously set goals for themselves that guide and direct their behavior toward the attainment of these goals. These people also engage in self-monitoring or self-evaluation. Self-evaluation can be helped along if feedback is given when a person is working on their goals because it can align how a person feels about how they are doing to achieve a goal and what they are actually doing to achieve their goals. In short, feedback provides an "error" message that a person who is off-track can reevaluate their goal.[19]

This theory has been linked to Goal setting and Goal Setting Theory, which has been mentioned above.

A new approach to work motivation is the idea of Work Engagement or "A conception of motivation whereby individuals are physically immersed in emotionally and intellectually fulfilling work."[19] This theory draws on many aspects of I/O Psychology. This theory proposes that motivation taps into energy where it allows a person to focus on a task. According to Schaufeli and Bakker[20] there are three dimensions to work engagement.

Work Engagement forwards the notion that individuals have the ability to contribute more to their own productivity than organizations typically allow. An example would be to allow workers to take some risks and not punish them if the risks leads to unsuccessful outcomes. "In short, work engagement can be thought of as an interaction of individuals and work. Engagement can occur when both facilitate each other, and engagement will not occur when either (or both) thwarts each other."[19] Some critics of work engagement say that this is nothing new, just "old wine in a new bottle."

The work motivation model includes 5 elements of individual motivators: money, myself, membership of a team, mastery, and mission. The approach is similar to the Maslow's hierarchy of Needs.

Organizational reward systems have a significant impact on employees' level of motivation. Rewards can be either tangible or intangible. Various forms of pay, such as salary, commissions, bonuses, employee ownership programs and various types of profit or gain sharing programs, are all important tangible rewards. While fringe benefits have a positive impact on attraction and retention, their direct impact on motivation and performance is not well-defined.[4]

Salaries play a crucial role in the tangible reward system. They are an important factor in attracting new talent to an organization as well as retaining talent. Compensating employees well is one way for an organization to reinforce an employee's value to the organization. If an organization is known for paying their employees top dollar, then they may develop a positive reputation in the job market as a result.

Through incentive compensation structures, employees can be guided to focus their attention and efforts on certain organizational goals. The goals that are reinforced through incentive pay should be carefully considered to make sure they are in alignment with the organizational objectives. If there are multiple rewards programs, it is important to consider if there might be any conflicting goals. For example, individual and team-based rewards can sometime work at cross-purposes.

Important forms of intangible rewards include praise, recognition and rewards. Intangible rewards are ones from which an employee does not derive any material gain.[4] Such rewards have the greatest impact when they soon follow the desired behavior and are closely tied to the performance. If an organization wants to use praise or other intangible rewards effectively, praise should be offered for a high level of performance and for things that they employee has control over. Some studies have shown that praise can be as effective as tangible rewards.[4]

Other forms of intangible performance include status symbols, such as a corner office, and increased autonomy and freedom. Increased autonomy demonstrates trust in an employee, may decrease occupational stress and improve job satisfaction. A 2010 study found positive relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and the absence of negative affect which may also be interrelated with work motivation.[22] Since it may be hard for an employee to achieve a similar level of trust in a new organization, increased autonomy may also help improve retention.[4]

Reward-based systems are certainly the more common practice for attempting to influence motivation within an organization, but some employers strive to design the work itself to be more conducive. There are multiple ways an organization can leverage job design principles to increase motivation. Three of the predominant approaches will be discussed here: the Humanistic Approach, the Job Characteristics Approach, and the Interdisciplinary Approach.[4]

The Humanistic Approach to job design was a reaction to "worker dissatisfaction over Scientific Management" and focused on providing employees with more input and an opportunity to maximize their personal achievement as referenced by Jex and Britt. Jobs should also provide intellectual stimulation, opportunities for creativity, and greater discretion over work-related activities. Two approaches used in the Humanistic Approach to job design are job rotation and job enrichment. Job rotation allows employees to switch to different jobs which allows them to learn new skills and provides them with greater variety. According to Jex and Britt, this would be most effective for simple jobs that can become mundane and boring over time. Job enrichment is focused on leveraging those aspects of jobs that are labeled motivators, such as control, intellectual challenge, and creativity. The most common form of job enrichment is vertical loading where additional tasks or discretion enhances the initial job design. While there is some evidence to support that job enrichment improves motivation, it is important to note that it is not effective for all people. Some employees are not more motivated by enriched jobs.[4]

The Job Characteristics Approach to job design is based on how core dimensions affect motivation. These dimensions include autonomy, variety, significance, feedback, and identity. The goal of JCT job design is to utilize specific interventions in an effort to enhance these core dimensions.

The process of designing work so as to enhance individual motivation to perform the work is called Job enrichment[19]

While the JCT approach to job design has a significant impact on job satisfaction, the effects on performance are more mixed. Much of the success of implementation of JCT practices is dependent on the organization carefully planning interventions and changes to ensure impact throughout the organization is anticipated. Many companies may have difficulty implementing JCT changes throughout the organization due to its high cost and complexity.[4]

One of the most recent approaches to work design, the Interdisciplinary Approach is based on the use of careful assessment of current job design, followed by a cost/benefit analysis, and finally changes based on the area in which a job is lacking. The assessment is conducted using the Multi-method Job Design Questionnaire, which is used to determine if the job is deficient in the areas of motivational, mechanistic, biological, or perceptual motor support. Motivational improvements are aligned with the Job Characteristics theory dimensions. Mechanistic improvements are focused on improving the efficiency of the job design. Biological improvements focus on improvements to ergonomics, health conditions, and employee comfort. Finally, perceptual motor improvements focus on the nature and presentation of the information an employee must work with. If improvements are identified using the questionnaire, the company then evaluates the cost of making the improvements and determines if the potential gains in motivation and performance justify those costs. Because of the analysis and cost/benefit components of the Interdisciplinary Approach, it is often less costly for organizations and implementations can be more effective. Only changes deemed to be appropriate investments are made, thus improving motivation, productivity, and job satisfaction while controlling costs.[4]

On the cutting edge of research pertaining to motivation in the workplace is the integration of motivation and creativity. Essentially, according to Ambrose and Kulik,[7] the same variables that predict intrinsic motivation are associated with creativity. This is a helpful conclusion in that organizations can measure and influence both creativity and motivation simultaneously. Further, allowing employees to choose creative and challenging jobs/tasks has been shown to improve motivation.[13] In order to increase creativity, setting "creativity goals" can positively influence the process, along with allowing more autonomy (i.e., giving employees freedom to feel/be creative). Other studies have found that team support may enable more creativity in a group setting,[23] also increasing motivation.

As the workplace is changing to include more group-based systems, researching motivation within these groups is of growing importance. To date, a great amount of research has focused on the Job characteristic theory and the Goal-setting Theory. While more research is needed that draws on a broader range of motivation theories, research thus far has concluded several things: (a) semi-autonomous groups report higher levels of job scope (related to intrinsic job satisfaction), extrinsic satisfaction, and organizational commitment; and (b) developmentally mature teams have higher job motivation and innovation. Further, voluntarily formed work teams report high work motivation.[7] Though research shows that appropriate goal-setting influences group motivation and performance, more research is needed in this area (group goals, individual goals, cohesiveness, etc.). There are inseparable mediating variables consisting of group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. As the workplace environment calls for more and more teams to be formed, research into motivation of teams is ever-pressing. Thus far, overarching research merely suggests that individual-level and team-level sources of motivation are congruent with each other.[24] Consequently, research should be expanded to apply more theories of motivation; look at group dynamics; and essentially conclude how groups can be most impacted to increase motivation and, consequently, performance.

Organizational cultures can be broken down into three groups: Strong, Strategically Appropriate, and Adaptive.[25] Each has been identified with high performing organizations and has particular implications on motivation in the workplace.

The most widely reported effect of culture on performance is that strong cultures result in high performance.[25] The three reasons for this are goal alignment, motivation, and the resulting structure provided. Goal alignment is driven by the proposed unified voice that drives employees in the same direction. Motivation comes from the strength of values and principles in such a culture. And structure is provided by these same attributes which obviate the need for formal controls that could stifle employees. There are questions that concern researchers about causality and the veracity of the driving voice of a strong culture.

A strategically appropriate culture motivates due to the direct support for performance in the market and industry: "The better the fit, the better the performance; the poorer the fit, the poorer the performance," state Kotter & Heskett.[25] There is an appeal to the idea that cultures are designed around the operations conditions a firm encounters although an outstanding issue is the question of adapting culture to changes in the environment.

Another perspective in culture literature asserts that in order for an organization to perform at a high level over a long period of time, it must be able to adapt to changes in the environment. According to Ralph Kilmann, in such a culture "there is a shared feeling of confidence: the members believe, without a doubt, that they can effectively manage whatever new problems and opportunities will come their way." In effect, the culture is infused with a high degree of self-efficacy and confidence. As with the strong culture, critics point to the fact that the theory provides nothing in the way of appropriate direction of adaptation that leads to high performance.

Another perspective on culture and motivation comes from the work of Cameron & Quinn[26] and the Competing Values Framework. They divide cultures into four quadrants: Clan, Adhocracy, Market, Hierarchy, with particular characteristics that directly affect employee motivation.

Culture has been shown to directly affect organizational performance. When viewed through the lens of accepted behaviors and ingrained values, culture also profoundly affects motivation. Whether one looks at the type of culturestrong, strategically appropriate, or adaptiveas Kotter & Heskett do,[25] or at the style of cultureClan, Adhocracy, Market, or Hierarchyas Cameron & Quinn do,[26] the connection between culture and motivation becomes clear and provides insights into how to hire, task, and motivate employees.

Link:
Work motivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

motivational methods and theory - assuming people and organization are aligned

Motivational and inspirational quotes, poems, posters, motivational speakers and stories, team building games and activities, all develop employee motivation for sales and business staff in all kinds of organizations. Motivational and inspirational experiences improve employees' attitudes, confidence and performance.

Good leadership demands good people-motivation skills and the use of inspirational techniques. Motivational methods are wide-ranging, from inspirational quotes and poems, to team building games and activities, as ice-breakers, warm-ups and exercises for conferences, workshops, meetings and events, which in themselves can often be helpful for staff motivation too. See the motivation principles and template for staff motivation questionnaires and surveys. Motivation is an essential part of life coaching processes and techniques too. Motivated people perform better - see McGregor's XY Theory for example. People playing games or competing in teams learn about each other, they communicate better and see each other in a new light. Mutual respect grows. See the Johari Window theory for example. People often enjoy events which include new non-work activities, especially when bosses and superiors take part in the same teams as their junior staff, which also helps cohesiveness and 'can-do' culture. Inspirational quotes, stories and poems all help motivation too. Powerful positive imagery stimulates visualisation in the conscious and sub-conscious brain, which encourages self-motivation, developmental behaviour, confidence and belief. Playing games enables people to experience winning and achieving in a way that their normal work might not. People become motivated to achieve and do better when they have experienced the feelings of success and achievement, regardless of context. This is why fire-walking and outward-bound activities have such powerful motivational effect. All of these ideas, and more explained below, contribute to improving motivation, inspiration and performance.

Here is the theory of how team building games, activities like juggling develop motivation, positive images in quotes and stories, inspirational posters, quotations, motivational speakers, team workshops and brainstorming, etc., all help to strengthen relationships, build understanding, increase motivation and improve performance:

Work and business-based training commonly concentrates on process, rules, theory, structure and logic, all of which tend to develop and use the left-side of the brain. However, modern successful organizations rely just as heavily on their people having well-developed 'soft' skills and attributes, such as self-motivation, confidence, initiative, empathy and creativity, which all tend to use the right-side of the brain. For more information about brain type and bias see the Benziger theory section, for example. Using games and activities like juggling helps to unleash right-side brain skills, because these activities necessarily draw on a person's intuitive, spatial and 'feeling' capabilities - found in the the right-side of the brain.

See the section on Experiential Learning and the guide to facilitating experiential learning activities - it contains many of the principles explained here.

Thanks to Jim Barker - Reproduction of this cartoon is expressly forbidden without permission from Jim Barker

Also, using activities and references that take people out of their normal work environment creates new opportunities for them to experience winning, achievement, team-working, learning and personal development, in ways that are often not possible in their usual work context. Experiencing these positive feelings is vital for the conscious and sub-conscious visualisation of success and achievement, essential for broadening people's horizons, raising their sights, setting new personal standards and goals, and increasing motivation. The use of role playing games and role play exercises is an especially effective motivational and visualisation technique, despite people's normal aversion to the practice (see the role playing games and activities tips to see how to manage role-playing activities successfully).

Inspirational references, stories, quotes and examples also help the life coaching process.

When a group or team of people assemble for a conference, or training course, there is always a feeling of uncertainty and discomfort. Even if people know each other, they feel uncomfortable in the new strange situation, because it is different. Mankind has evolved partly because of this awareness to potential threats and fear of the unknown. Games and team building activities relax people, so that they can fully concentrate on the main purpose of the day, whatever it is, rather than spending the morning still wondering what everyone else is thinking. See the stress theory section for examples. Activities and games are great levellers - they break down the barriers, and therefore help develop rapport and relationships.

Learning something new and completely different liberates the mind. Facing a challenge, meeting it and mastering it helps build confidence.

When you break down barriers, misunderstandings, prejudices, insecurities, divisions, territories and hierarchies - you begin to build teams. Get a group of people in a room having fun with juggling balls or spinning plates and barriers are immediately removed. Teams unite and work together when they identify a common purpose - whether the aim is the tallest tower made out of newspapers, or a game of rounders on the park. Competition in teams or groups creates teams and ignites team effort.

Learning to juggle or some other new activity demonstrates how we learn, and how to coach others. Breaking new tasks down into stages, providing clear instructions, demonstration, practice, time and space to make mistakes, doing it one stage at a time..... all the essential training and coaching techniques can be shown, whether juggling is the vehicle or some other team-building idea, and the learning is clearer and more memorable because it is taken out of the work context, where previously people 'can't see the wood for the trees'. Games and activities provide a perfect vehicle for explaining the training and development process ('train the trainer' for example) to managers, team leaders and trainers.

Everyone is different. Taking part in new games and activities outside of the work situation illustrates people's different strengths and working style preferences. Mutual respect develops when people see skills and attributes in others that they didn't know existed. Also, people work and learn in different ways, see the Kolb learning style model and Benziger thinking styles model for examples.

Learning and taking part in a completely new activity or game like juggling demonstrates that learning is ongoing. The lessons never finish, unless people decide to stop learning. Juggling the basic 'three ball cascade' pattern doesn't end there - it's just a start - as with all learning and development. Master juggler Enrico Rastelli practiced all the daylight hours juggling ten balls. Introducing people, staff or employees to new experiences opens their minds to new avenues of personal development, and emphasises the opportunity for continuous learning that is available to us all.

"Seek first to understand, and then to be understood." (Steven Covey). See the Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People summary and review.

To communicate we must understand the other person. Empathy and intuitive skills are right-side brain. Conventional classroom training or distance learning do nothing to address this vital area. Juggling and playing spontaneous or creative games definitely promote development and awareness in the right-side of the brain, which we use when we communicate and understand others. Team activities and games promote communications and better mutual understanding - essential for good organizational performance (see the Johari Window model and theory).

Creativity and initiative are crucial capabilities for modern organizational effectiveness. Juggling and other games activities dispel the notion that actions must be according to convention, and that response can only be to stimulus. Successful organizations have staff that initiate, create, innovate, and find new ways to do things better, without being told. Using mind and body together in a completely new way encourages pro-active thought and lateral thinking, which opens people's minds, and develops creative and initiative capabilities. See the brainstorming process, which integrates well with team building activities and workshops. See also the workshops process and ideas.

Problem-solving is integral to decision-making - see the problem-solving and decision-making section. Learning to juggle or taking part in new challenging stimulating activities uses the intuitive brain to solve the problem, the same part that's vital for creatively solving work problems. People who can solve problems creatively can make decisions - and organizations need their staff and employees to have these abilities.

Team building activities like juggling, construction exercises, or outdoor games, get the body moving, which is good for general health and for an energetic approach to work. A minute of juggling three balls is 200 throws, the equivalent of pumping over 20 kilos. Physical activity also provides significant stress relief, and stress management is part of every organisation's duty of care towards its employees. People concentrate and work better when they have had some light exercise and physical stimulus. Physical activity energises people and reduces stress and tension. See details on the stress section.

See the section on workshops. Workshops are good vehicles for team building games and activities, and also great for achieving team consensus, collective problem-solving, developing new direction and strategy, and to support the delegation and team development process (see the Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum for example).

Learning new things - even simple skills like plate-spinning - help to build confidence, promote team-working and unleash creativity. Taking part in workshops and brainstorming sessions are empowering activities. Combine all three and it's even more effective for team building, development and motivation. See particularly the 'Hellespont Swim' case study and exercise.

If you think about it, all manner of left-side-brain conventional training and business skills can be integrated within an innovative, participative right-side-brain activity-based approach, to increase interest, participation, involvement, retention and motivation.

Saying thanks and giving praise are the most commonly overlooked and under-estimated ways of motivating people. And it's so easy. Saying thanks is best said naturally and from the heart, so if your intentions are right you will not go far wrong. When you look someone in the eye and thank them sincerely it means a lot. In front of other people even more so. The key words are the ones which say thanks and well done for doing a great job, especially where the words recognise each person's own special ability, quality, contribution, effort, whatever. People always appreciate sincere thanks, and they appreciate being valued as an individual even more. When you next have the chance to thank your team or an individual team-member, take the time to find out a special thing that each person has done and make a point of mentioning these things. Doing this, the praise tends to carry even greater meaning and motivational effect.

Inspirational quotations, and amusing maxims and sayings are motivational when used in team building sessions, conferences, speeches and training courses. Inspirational quotes contribute to motivation because they provide examples and role models, and prompt visualization. Inspirational quotes stimulate images and feelings in the brain - both consciously and unconsciously. Powerful positive imagery found in motivational quotations and poems is genuinely motivational for people, individually and in teams, and can help to build confidence and belief. Inspirational examples motivate people in the same way that the simple 'power of positive thinking', and 'accentuate the positive' techniques do - people imagine and visualise themselves behaving in the way described in the quotation, saying, story or poem. Visualization is a powerful motivational tool - quotes, stories and poems provide a very effective method for inspiring and motivating people through visualization, imagination and association. See the stories section, and 'If', Rudyard Kipling's famous inspirational poem.

Here are a few motivational quotes, relating to different situations and roles, for example; achievement, management, leadership, etc. When using quote for motivation it's important to choose material that's relevant and appropriate. Motivational posters showing inspirational quotes or poems can be effective for staff and employee motivation, and in establishing organizational values. There are more quotations about inspiration and achievement on the quotes section. These quotes all make effective motivational posters (see the free posters page), and are excellent materials for motivational speakers:

"We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them." (Albert Einstein)

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." (President Harry S Truman)

"In the midst of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." (Albert Camus, 1913 - 1960, French author & philosopher)

"If you're not part of the solution you must be part of the problem." (the commonly paraphrased version of the original quote: "What we're saying today is that you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem" by Eldridge Cleaver 1935-98, founder member and information minister of the Black Panthers, American political activist group, in a speech in 1968 - thanks RVP)

"A dream is just a dream. A goal is a dream with a plan and a deadline." (Harvey Mackay - thanks Brad Hanson)

"I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles overcome while trying to succeed." (Booker T Washington, 1856-1915, American Educator and African-American spokesman, thanks for quote M Kincaid, and for biography correction M Yates and A Chatterjee)

"Most people never run far enough on their first wind to find out they've got a second. Give your dreams all you've got and you'll be amazed at the energy that comes out of you." (William James, American Philosopher, 1842-1910 - thanks Jean Stevens)

"Whatever you can do - or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer, 1749-1832 - thanks Yvonne Bent)

"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than the giant himself." (Didacus Stella, circa AD60 - and, as a matter of interest, abridged on the edge of an English 2 coin)

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." (Sir Isaac Newton, 1676.)

"The most important thing in life is not to capitalise on your successes - any fool can do that. The really important thing is to profit from your mistakes." (William Bolitho, from 'Twelve against the Gods')

"Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be, For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance, I have not winced nor cried aloud: Under the bludgeonings of chance my head is bloody but unbowed . . . . . It matters not how strait the gait, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." (WE Henley, 1849-1903, from 'Invictus')

"Management means helping people to get the best out of themselves, not organising things." (Lauren Appley)

"It's not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred with the sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause and who, at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." (Theodore Roosevelt, 23 April 1923.)

"The world is divided into people who do things, and people who get the credit. Try, if you can, to belong to the first class. There's far less competition." (Dwight Morrow, 1935.)

"What does not kill us makes us stronger." (attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, probably based on his words: "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger." from The Twilight of the Idols, 1899)

"A life spent in making mistakes is not only more honourable but more useful than a life spent doing nothing." (George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950.)

"I praise loudly. I blame softly." (Catherine the Great, 1729-1796.)

More are on the inspirational quotes page, and a more varied selection including funny sayings are on the sayings and maxims page.

(These principles are applicable to all job roles subject to the notes at the end of this item.)

Motivation of sales people commonly focuses on sales results, but nobody can actually 'do' a result. What matters in achieving results is people's attitude and activity and the areas of opportunity on which the attitude and activity is directed.

What sales people can do is to adopt a positive and creative attitude, and carry out more productive and efficient activity, directed on higher-yield strategic opportunities. By doing these things sales people and sales teams will improve their results.

However the tendency remains for sales managers, sales supervisors and team leaders (typically under pressure from above from executives who should know better) to simply direct people to 'meet the target', or to 'increase sales', or worse still, to pressurise customers into accelerating decision-making, which might work in the short-term but is extremely unhelpful in the medium-term (when business brought forward leaves gaps in the next months' forecasts), and damages the long-term (when as a result of supplier-driven sales pressure, the customer relationship is undermined or ruined).

Instead think about what really motivates and excites people, and focus on offering these opportunities to sales people and sales teams, on an ongoing basis. Don't wait until you find yourself 25% behind target with only half of the year remaining, and with targets set to increase as well in the final quarter.

People will not generally and sustainably improve their performance, or attitude when they are shouted at or given a kick up the backside. People will on the other hand generally improve their performance if empowered to develop their own strategic capability and responsibility within the organisation. Herzberg, Adams, Handy, Maslow, McGregor, and every other management and motivation expert confirmed all this long ago.

Sales teams generally comprise people who seek greater responsibility. They also seek recognition, achievement, self-development and advancement.

So if we know these things does it not make good sense to offer these opportunities to them, because we know that doing so will have a motivational effect on them, and also encourage them to work on opportunities that are likely to produce increasing returns on their efforts? Of course. So do it.

If you are managing a sales team try (gently and progressively) exploring with the team how they'd like to develop their experience, responsibilities, roles, status, value, contribution, within the business. Include yourself in this. Usually far more ideas and activity come from focusing on how the people would like to develop their roles and value (in terms of the scale and sophistication of the business that they are responsible for), rather than confining sales people to a role that is imposed on them and which is unlikely to offer sustainable interest and stimulation.

All businesses have many opportunities for new strategic growth available. Yours will be no different.

Most employees are capable of working at a far higher strategic level, developing ever greater returns on their own efforts.

Performance improvement is generally found through enabling people and teams to discover and refine more productive and strategic opportunities, which will lead to more productive and motivating activities.

For example: reactive sales people are generally able to be proactive account mangers; account managers are generally able to be major accounts developers; major accounts developers are generally able to be national accounts managers; national accounts mangers are generally able to be strategic partner and channel developers; strategic partner and channel managers are generally able to be new business sector/service developers, and so on...

Again include yourself in this.

If necessary (depending on your organisational culture and policies seek approval from your own management/executives for you to embark on this sort of exploration of strategic growth. (If you are unable to gain approval there are many other organisations out there who need people to manage sales teams in this way....)

Obviously part of the approach (and your agreement with your people - the 'psychological contract') necessarily includes maintaining and meeting existing basic business performance target levels. This is especially so since strategic growth takes time, and your business still needs the normal day-to-day business handled properly. But people can generally do this, ie., maintain and grow day-to-day performance while additionally developing new higher-level strategic areas, because genuinely motivated people are capable of dramatic achievements. The motivation and capacity to do will come quite naturally from the new responsibility and empowerment to operate at a higher level.

N.B. The principles described above generally apply to most other job roles. People are motivated by growth and extra responsibility, while at the same time the organisation benefits from having its people focus on higher strategic aims and activities. Be aware however that people in different roles will be motivated by different things, and particularly will require different types of support and guidelines when being encouraged to work at a higher strategic level. For example, engineers require more detail and clarification of expectations and process than sales people typically do; administrators are likely to require more reassurance and support in approaching change than sales people typically do.

For sure you should encourage and enable people to develop their roles, but make sure you give appropriate explanation, management and support for the types of people concerned.

Here are some classic motivation books, all related to motivational theories featured on this website.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

These books are linked to Amazon.co.uk.

I apologise to folk in other parts of the world. It is not practical to repeat this display for all the different Amazon regions.

Unfortunately Amazon seem not to be capable (or suitably motivated) to offer a system which automatically directs buyers to their local Amazon website.

The Amazon commission goes towards the costs of running and developing this website, thank you.

Other useful motivational theories and materials on this website, for example:

Read more from the original source:
employee motivation, motivational and inspirational quotes ...

If you want to make positive, lasting change in your life, it helps to spend some time thinking about motivation. What are your reasons for wanting to strength train? What are your personal goals? What obstacles do you anticipate and how might you overcome them? It's also a good idea to visualize your success and consider how you might celebrate your achievements.

Believing in yourselfbelieving that you can leap barriers and achieve your goalsis the ticket to success. One of the most powerful tools for building self-confidence is visualization. This easy technique involves imagining the accomplishment of the changes or goals you're working to achieve. It is a process of "training" purely within the mind. By visualizing in detail your successful execution of each step in a given activity, you create, modify, or strengthen brain pathways that are important in coordinating your muscles for the visualized activity. This prepares you to perform the activity itself. The technique is useful in many areas of lifefrom avoiding anxiety during a stressful situation, to performing well during competition. You may find it a powerful tool in strength training.

Top of Page

Read more:
Motivation - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Motivation

Between 1924-32 the Hawthorne Works telephone equipment plant of the Western Electric Company was the site of a research program. A series of experiments focused on the levels of illumination and its affect on productivity. What made this interesting was that productivity continued to increase even when the illumination was reduced. It seemed that because the workers knew they were a part of a research they increased their productivity even when the conditions were not conducive to them. This was eventually called the Hawthorne Effect. Even though, the research that was conducted was flawed the knowledge gained on motivation was significant.

Motivation is considered goal-oriented behavior and the underlying motives. Motives arouse and direct our behavior toward some goal. There are three major categories of motives: biological, stimulus, and learned social motives.

Humor

Biological motives are things such as hunger, thirst, and physical needs.

Stimulus motives are things such as sensory stimulation, exploration, curiosity etc.

Social motives are behaviors such as achievement, power, affiliation, and other social experiences.

Motivation is behavior that is initiated and directed toward a goal, and varies in intensity and persistence.

Consider a biological motive such as hunger. There are times when you eat because its time and other times when your hunger is such you stop doing something and eat. Consider sleep, there are times when you sleep because you're tired and other times because it is time. The intensity of your behavior to eat or sleep is also, relevant. Psychologists look at motivation via behaviors associated with initiation, direction, intensity and persistence. In research we may manipulate the environment such that behaviors will or will not occur. For example, if a lab rat is not hungry it will probably not push a button to get food. Therefore it would be difficult to train a lab rat to push a button.

Theories of motivation

Genetic theories

In the late 1800's the field of psychology initially leaned toward the concept of instinct theory to explain motivation. According to instinct theory people are motivated to engage in certain behaviors because of genetic programming. However, instinct theory began to be viewed as too simplistic and was not able to explain a number of behaviors. During the 1920-30's it began to fall out of favor. Instinct theory was replaced by the concept of Drive theories. This asserted that behavior is motivated by the desire to reduce internal tension caused by unmet biological needs. When particular behavior is successful at reducing tension then it is more likely to be repeated.

The idea is these unmet biological needs drive or push us to behave in certain ways. Clark Hull and Robert Woodworth believed that drives are a triggered by the internal mechanisms of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the principle that the body monitors and maintains itself in a balance of all the systems. And the body is constantly, attempting to maintain this state. If there is loss of homeostasis then there is action to return to it. The intensity of the behavior or actions related to maintaining this balanced state are tempered with the amount of out of balance we are. When your levels of oxygen and C02 are out of balance you initiate a yawning behavior which returns the 02 and C02's balance. This is called a drive. Drive is the impulse that activates behavior to reduce a need and restore homeostasis. Again this was not adequate in explaining all behaviors and situations. Although, this was useful for understanding many types of behavior and motivation.

Incentive theories view behavior is motivated by the pull of external goals, such as rewards. During the 1950's [remember that behaviorism was considered the predominate view of behavior in psychology] psychology began to view motivation as not necessarily involving all of the internal mechanisms. The behaviorists could create or modify many behaviors by manipulating stimulus and or rewards [reinforcement].

Arousal theory

Arousal theory holds that you must consider the whole person and to understand how the person regulates his or her arousal level. Arousal is a continuum that ranges from low to high and behavior is motivated by changes in the arousal state which in turn creates behavior to efficiently address the arousal state.

Donald Hebb [1955] proposed the we are motivated to maintain an optimum level of arousal. In other words, if our arousal level drops too low we are motivated to do something about it. It is also noted that the relationship between arousal and performance is an inverted U and there is a finite point in which too much arousal will cause a deterioration in performance as well as too little arousal.

Abraham Maslow proposed the concept of "Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow was a humanist psychologist that did not discount the biological components of motivation but proposed that there were basic needs, psychological needs and self-fulfillment needs. He develop the concept of the hierarch of needs:

Physiological needs: such as food, water, warmth, rest, etc.

Safety needs: security, safety, shelter etc.

Belongingness: intimacy, friendships, social relationships

Esteem needs: prestige, feelings of accomplishment, social acceptance.

Self-actualization:achieving ones potential

Maslow approached this by studying people who where view as successful and well adjusted.

Cognitive Theory

The cognitive theorists would view motivation based on physical needs or arousal, learned behavior, and maybe non-conscious not only wants or wishes but also on how we think. Your thinking controls how you act and when you act. If you think you are in danger you will behave differently than if you don't think you are in danger. The expectancy-value theory, developed by Julian Rotter [1954] argued that behavior is the result of our expectations of achieving goals and the value that those goals have for us. Attribution is an other cognitive process related to motivation. Forces within the person [disposition forces] and forces in the environment [situation forces] interact and a person does or doesn't do goal directed behavior.

Evolutionary Psychology

Uses the principles of natural selection to study how adaptive human behaviors and psychological mechanisms have developed. Evolutionary psychology studies cross culture in an attempt to discover the commonality of human behavior.

Consider eating. There is probably many times when you eat because you are physically hungry. However, there are probably other times when you eat not because you are hungry but for something else. Have you ever over eaten? If you were motivated to eat only by the biological need to eat how would you explain eating past your hunger quenching level?

The motivation to eat

The motivation to eat is influenced by psychological, biological and/or social and cultural factors.

Biological:

Oral stimulation, stomach signals, CCK [a hormone called cholecystokinin] that acts as a neurotransmitter that signals the receptor sites in hypothalamus that are related to eating and hunger. The glucostatic theory of hunger, proposed by Jean Mayer asserted that hunger occurs when the glucose metabolism in individual cells falls below a certain level which in turn stimulates us to eat. The Lipstatic theory proposed our hunger is regulated by the storage of body fat. And that for some the storage of body fat manifests itself in over eating and obesity. Richard Nisbett suggested that there is a set-point theory of obesity. He suggests that there is a point in which the hypothalamus reacts to blood sugar level and for some this point is higher.

It has also been suggested that people who over eat may have low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. And msy over eat carbohydrates to compensate.

Psychological reasons to eat and over eat:

The psychodynamic view is eating is related to security, safety and maybe driven by unconscious desires and wishes. Eating maybe compensating for some unconscious psychic need. An example to this approach might suggest that a person who over eats and becomes heavy is putting a layer of fat on them to insulate them from their environment or to make him or her less attractive in order to avoid people. [this is a very simplistic manner in explaining this concept.]

The behaviorists would explain over eating as a learned behavior via direct reinforcement, imitation, and other learned behavior. And that eating is a self rewarding behavior.

The cognitive theorists would consider overeating as having its roots in the cognitive processes and that we think or believe certain things and eating is the manifestation of those cognitive processes.

Eating disorders:

Two major eating disorders are anorexia nervosa and Bulimia nervosa

Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder in which the person becomes severely underweight because of self-imposed restrictions in eating. The APA diagnosis of this disorder includes the intense fear of being overweight and the loss of 15% of body weight without any physical problems that would account for it. Although both sexes are represented in this disorder more females present with this disorder. It is estimated 1% of the female teenage population is affected by anorexia. The person literally starves themselves, often times, to death. The anorexic will either ignore or is not aware that they are not ingesting enough to maintain a healthy state. Their self-perceptions are extremely disoriented. They view themselves as appearing differently than others. When they look in the mirror they appear to not see themselves as others do. They see fat where there is none, they a poor at self monitoring and evaluation. Causes seem to be related to societal pressures to be thin as well as culture as that it is a disorder that is mainly in the Western Americian/Europeon culture.

Bulimia nervosa is a eating disorder that is manifested by eating large amounts of calorie rich food in a short time then purging the food by vomiting or using laxatives. This is contrasted to anorexia as often individuals with bulimia are within normal weight ranges. Sometimes the bulimic will ingest as much as 50,000 calories at one time in a short period. There are periods of binge eating which occur in secret. As with anorexia, cultural pressures seemed to be related as well as faulty thinking about food intake, distorted body perception and a tendency toward perfectionism. Also, worth noting is there seems to be genetic factors related as well.

Curiosity and exploration

The curiosity motive causes us to seek out a certain amount of novelty and complexity, and with not apparent motivation, we seek out and explore new environments. Young children prefer complex patterns over simple ones.

Some of the research suggests that our level of curiosity motive stays stable throughout our lifetime. The motivational theory of competence state that we are motivated to interact successfully with our environment.

Intrinsic motivation is behavior that results from interpersonal factors.

Extrinsic motivation is behavior that results for extra-personal factors. [what we can get]

Edward Deci [1975] proposed his theory of intrinsic motivation. He suggested that we need to feel competent in controlling and interacting with our environment. And self-determination is can increase intrinsic motivated behavior.

Learned Social Motives

Henry Murray [1938] contended that social motives are largely learned and he developed a list of basic social motives:

Achievement

Affiliation

Aggression

Autonomy

Dominance

Nurturance

Play

Understanding

He and others suggest we are taught to maintain a certain level of the above. Further, we are taught and acquire behavior that allows us to achieve our learned social motives.

The level of intensity by which the person attempts to meet the learned social motives is determined both by individual and familial influences as well as by cultural and societal influences.

Research of fear of failure indicates that people who score low on the need for achievement tests also tend to have a high fear of failure.

Also, it has been shown that the need for affiliation increases during period of anxiety. Misery needs company. When given the choice of waiting in an anxious situation in a nice environment and alone or in a poor environment with others most would choose the later.

Return

Sources:

Psychology a Connectext 4th edition, Terry F. Pettijohn

Discovering Psychology, Don Hockenbury & Sandra Hockenbury

Social Psychology, 5th edition, Deaux Wrightsman

More here:
Motivation - Flathead Valley Community College

Overview

At a simple level, it seems obvious that people do things, such as go to work, in order to get stuff they want and to avoid stuff they don't want.

Why exactly they want what they do and don't want what they don't is still something a mystery. It's a black box and it hasn't been fully penetrated.

Overall, the basic perspective on motivation looks something like this:

In other words, you have certain needs or wants (these terms will be used interchangeably), and this causes you to do certain things (behavior), which satisfy those needs (satisfaction), and this can then change which needs/wants are primary (either intensifying certain ones, or allowing you to move on to other ones).

A variation on this model, particularly appropriate from an experimenter's or manager's point of view, would be to add a box labeled "reward" between "behavior" and "satisfaction". So that subjects (or employees), who have certain needs do certain things (behavior), which then get them rewards set up by the experimenter or manager (such as raises or bonuses), which satisfy the needs, and so on.

People seem to have different wants. This is fortunate, because in markets this creates the very desirable situation where, because you value stuff that I have but you don't, and I value stuff that you have that I don't, we can trade in such a way that we are both happier as a result.

But it also means we need to try to get a handle on the whole variety of needs and who has them in order to begin to understand how to design organizations that maximize productivity.

Part of what a theory of motivation tries to do is explain and predict who has which wants. This turns out to be exceedingly difficult.

Many theories posit a hierarchy of needs, in which the needs at the bottom are the most urgent and need to be satisfied before attention can be paid to the others.

Maslow's hierarchy of need categories is the most famous example:

Specific examples of these types are given below, in both the work and home context. (Some of the instances, like "education" are actually satisfiers of the need.)

According to Maslow, lower needs take priority. They must be fulfilled before the others are activated. There is some basic common sense here -- it's pointless to worry about whether a given color looks good on you when you are dying of starvation, or being threatened with your life. There are some basic things that take precedence over all else.

Or at least logically should, if people were rational. But is that a safe assumption? According to the theory, if you are hungry and have inadequate shelter, you won't go to church. Can't do the higher things until you have the lower things. But the poor tend to be more religious than the rich. Both within a given culture, and across nations.So the theory makes the wrong prediction here.

Or take education: how often do you hear "I can't go to class today, I haven't had sex in three days!"? Do all physiological needs including sex have to be satisfied before "higher" needs? (Besides, wouldn't the authors of the Kama Sutra argue that sex was a kind of self-expression more like art than a physiological need? that would put it in the self-actualization box).Again, the theory doesn't seem to predict correctly.

Cultural critique: Does Maslow's classification really reflect the order in which needs are satisfied, or is it more about classifying needs from a kind of "tastefulness" perspective, with lofty goals like personal growth and creativity at the top, and "base" instincts like sex and hunger at the bottom? And is self-actualization actually a fundamental need? Or just something that can be done if you have the leisure time?

Alderfer classifies needs into three categories, also ordered hierarchically:

This is very similar to Maslow -- can be seen as just collapsing into three tiers. But maybe a bit more rational. For example, in Alderfer's model, sex does not need to be in the bottom category as it is in Maslow's model, since it is not crucial to (the individual's) existence. (Remember, this about individual motivation, not species' survival.) So by moving sex, this theory does not predict that people have to have sex before they can think about going to school, like Maslow's theory does.

Alderfer believed that as you start satisfying higher needs, they become more intense (e.g., the power you get the more you want power), like an addiction.

Do any of these theories have anything useful to say for managing businesses? Well, if true, they suggest that

Some needs are acquired as a result of life experiences

Again similar to maslow and alderfer.

These needs can be measured using the TAT (thematic apperception test), which is a projection-style test based on interpreting stories that people tell about a set of pictures.

This theory suggests that there are actually two motivation systems: intrinsic and extrinsic that correspond to two kinds of motivators:

One or the other of these may be a more powerful motivator for a given individual.

Intrinsically motivated individuals perform for their own achievement and satisfaction. If they come to believe that they are doing some job because of the pay or the working conditions or some other extrinsic reason, they begin to lose motivation.

The belief is that the presence of powerful extrinsic motivators can actually reduce a person's intrinsic motivation, particularly if the extrinsic motivators are perceived by the person to be controlled by people. In other words, a boss who is always dangling this reward or that stick will turn off the intrinsically motivated people.

Note that the intrinsic motivators tend to be higher on the Maslow hierarchy.

According to Herzberg, two kinds of factors affect motivation, and they do it in different ways:

So hygiene factors determine dissatisfaction, and motivators determine satisfaction. The two scales are independent, and you can be high on both.

Suppose employee A gets a 20% raise and employee B gets a 10% raise. Will both be motivated as a result? Will A be twice as motivated? Will be B be negatively motivated?

Equity theory says that it is not the actual reward that motivates, but the perception, and the perception is based not on the reward in isolation, but in comparison with the efforts that went into getting it, and the rewards and efforts of others. If everyone got a 5% raise, B is likely to feel quite pleased with her raise, even if she worked harder than everyone else. But if A got an even higher raise, B perceives that she worked just as hard as A, she will be unhappy.

In other words, people's motivation results from a ratio of ratios: a person compares the ratio of reward to effort with the comparable ratio of reward to effort that they think others are getting.

Of course, in terms of actually predicting how a person will react to a given motivator, this will get pretty complicated:

Reinforcement Theory

Operant Conditioning is the term used by B.F. Skinner to describe the effects of the consequences of a particular behavior on the future occurrence of that behavior. There are four types of Operant Conditioning: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Punishment, and Extinction. Both Positive and Negative Reinforcement strengthen behavior while both Punishment and Extinction weaken behavior.

Reinforcement schedules.

The traditional reinforcement schedule is called a continuous reinforcement schedule. Each time the correct behavior is performed it gets reinforced.

Then there is what we call an intermittent reinforcement schedule. There are fixed and variable categories.

The Fixed Interval Schedule is where reinforcement is only given after a certain amount of time has elapsed. So, if you decided on a 5 second interval then each reinforcement would occur at the fixed time of every 5 seconds.

The Fixed Ratio Schedule is where the reinforcement is given only after a predetermined number of responses. This is often seen in behavior chains where a number of behaviors have to occur for reinforcement to occur.

The Variable Interval Schedule is where the reinforcement is given after varying amounts of time between each reinforcement.

The Variable Ratio Schedule is where the reinforcement is given after a varying number of correct responses.

Fluctuating combinations of primary and secondary reinforcers fall under other terms in the variable ratio schedule; For example, Reinforcers delivered Intermittently in a Randomized Order (RIR) or Variable Ratio with Reinforcement Variety (VRRV).

(yearly raise)

[short term]

(unexpected bonus based on merit)

[medium term]

(commissions or piecework pay)

[medium term]

(team-based bonus)

[long term]

This theory is meant to bring together many of the elements of previous theories. It combines the perceptual aspects of equity theory with the behavioral aspects of the other theories. Basically, it comes down to this "equation":

M = E*I*V

or

motivation = expectancy * instrumentality * valence

M (motivation) is the amount a person will be motivated by the situation they find themselves in. It is a function of the following.

E (expectancy) = The person's perception that effort will result in performance. In other words, the person's assessment of the degree to which effort actually correlates with performance.

I (instrumentality) = The person's perception that performance will be rewarded/punished. I.e., the person's assessment of how well the amount of reward correlates with the quality of performance. (Note here that the model is phrased in terms of extrinsic motivation, in that it asks 'what are the chances I'm going to get rewarded if I do good job?'. But for intrinsic situations, we can think of this as asking 'how good will I feel if I can pull this off?').

V(valence) = The perceived strength of the reward or punishment that will result from the performance. If the reward is small, the motivation will be small, even if expectancy and instrumentality are both perfect (high).

Here is the original post:
Motivation - Analytic Technologies

This article or chapter is incomplete and its contents need further attention. Some information may be missing or may be wrong, spelling and grammar may have to be improved, use your judgment!

This article should be rewritten. Only use it to grab some ideas and pointers to further reading ... DSchneider

Often, on makes a distinction between intrinsic motivation (desire to do something for personal, internal reasons) and extrinsic motivation (seek recompensation and avoid punishment), but the two are very much linked and difficult to separate.

See also: Affect, self-efficacy theory, flow theory, student satisfaction

Maslow (1954) wrote one of most cited articles on lower-level human motivation and that was based on a synthesis of the state of art. He later expaned it to include higher level needs.

According to Huitt (2001), Maslow's model broke down human motivation into a hierarchy of needs

This hierarchy is a bottom up structure with need (1) being the lowest level. Each lower need must be met before one can move to the next level

Drive theories are behaviorist and/or cognitivist in nature and explain behavior as as response to psychological and social needs. The relation between need and motivation can be described as a feedback system. The bigger the need the bigger motivation and the lesser the need, the lesser the motivation. E.g. We are more motivated to eat when we hungry and less motivated after we have eaten. Regarding instruction, learners in these models are rather passive and the environment (materials, teachers, etc.) in control.

Needs are cognitively elaborated into concrete motivational goals and means-end structures. Being motivated means striving for goals which are by definition not yet realized at the moment that they are formulated or expresses (Nuttin, 1980). The individuals hopes and expects to reach them at a certain moment in time as a consequence of his actions. There are three degrees of activation: (1) passive action to respond to stimulus, (2) respond actively to selected stimuli and (3) change the environment. At levels two and three, goals and the anticipated outcome are the source of motivation. Good goals are: clear, personally relevant, proximal, progress can be seen, interim successes are possible.

One can distinguish between learning goals (desire to be able to master a task) and performance goals (desire to appear competent or at least better than the others).

For Greenwald (1982), the 'self' becomes involved in an activity in three conditions:

Herzberg et al. (1959) identified two main factors of work satisfaction: hygiene needs, which are influenced by the physical and psychological conditions in which people work, and motivator needs, which Herzberg described as being very similar to the higher-order needs in Maslows (1954) hierarchy theory. (Furnham et al., 2009). Fullfillment of hygiene needs only can eliminate dissatisfaction but it can't motivate. So let's let just look at motivation. F. Herzberg's 5 factors motivation/demotivation model is based on the idea that motivation is related to internal satisfaction dependent on external factors:

This model was extracted from fourteen first-level job factors related with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, possibility of advancement, possibility of growth, salary status, the quality of interpersonal relations with superiors, the quality of interpersonal relations with peers, technical supervision, agreement with company policies and administration, pleasant working conditions, external factors from personal life, and job security. The five factor model defines motivation as a result of the job content (or the learning activity if we dare to extrapolate).

In a more recent publication, Furnham et al (1999) relate work motivation to personality. E.g. they found that extraversion can be related to a preference for Herzberg's motivator factors, and neuroticism a preference for hygiene factors.

Warr (????) describes motivation as a cognitive process that concerns future planned actions and that can be based on a set of reasons:

A similar model concerns the characteristics of the task and the job environment (Hackman and Oldman, 1976): Factors influencing motivation are:

These theories had important impact on how work should be designed. In simple terms, work is more motivating if tasks are varied and meaningful, if the worker can exercise control. On the other hand task also should lead to results that are acknowledged by the environment. According to many studies, these models don't work for everyone but best for people who do have "growth needs".

How does the actor/learner explain what happens to him? How does he explain the outcome (e.g. success and failure). Dimensions of causes that learners attribute can be:

Of course the pedagogical design and the teacher can influence these perceptions. In empirical studies these factors also show up in combinations related to given issues and affect. Philipp Dessus (2001) summarizes Crahay, 1999, p. 284 and Archambault & Chouinard, 1996, p. 110):

Motivation equals the degree of perceived control. Influencing factors are: choices, impositions by others through threats or controlling statements or being watched, getting feedback, getting extrinsic rewards

Most authors agree that immediate extrinsic rewards don't contribute much to motivation. Long term extrinsic rewards do play a role. E.g. studies about job satisfaction (e.g. Herzberg et al, 1969) identify recognition for achievement and social progression as critical factors that could be called extrinsic. Achievement, work itself and responsability are rather intrinsic.

The informal management literature often makes similare statements. E.g. Rewards and punishments are not opposites at all; they are two sides of the same coin. And it is a coin that does not buy very much (Kohn, 1999). Or more explicitely Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people's behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery. (Punished by Rewards). Daniel H. Pink's (2010) Drive book makes similar statements.

Konrad (2005) argues that in an educational context we should complete sociological, psychological and interactional models with a decision making approach where learners are seen as decision makers, who more or less consciously analyse their past experiences, current life and work situation, and future expectations, and base their decisions to participate or not on these complex elements which form the motivation structure. (Konrad, 2005:7).

Manninen (2004:4) also points out that different stages of the learning process may engage different motivations. Motives activate, direct and maintain the learning activity (Ruohotie 2000, 8). Therefore motivation and its factors should be defined keeping in mind in which part of the process they belong. For example, activating elements are more general factors which are more or less stable personality elements (like curiosity, learner self-image), while directing factors (like outcome beliefs, task value) focus the persons interest on a specific target (learning activity). Elements maintaining the motivation, on the other hand, influence learning activity while it is taking place (during the training programme; test anxiety, expectancy for success) or as feedback loop after the learning experience (like achievements) influencing therefore future motivation to participate or not.

The following table lists some non exclusive models of explanation. It is based on Manninen (2004) and was also found in Konrad (2005):

In any case, DSchneider believes that motivation in relation to teaching and learning has to be conceived as multi-dimensional phenomenon (construct) influenced by various variables such as:

Motivation always has been a key variable in education:

In general, explanations regarding the source(s) of motivation can be categorized as either extrinsic (outside the person) or intrinsic (internal to the person). Intrinsic sources and corresponding theories can be further subcategorized as either body/physical, mind/mental (i.e., cognitive, affective, conative) or transpersonal/spiritual. (Huitt, 2001).

Motivation to learn according to Huitt, 2001 (reproduced without asking permission)

According to Marilla Svinicki, teachers, in order to increase student motivation, should:

How theories are used to design for motivation

Guerrero & Sire (2000:3-4) again point out the complexity of motivation and single out self-efficacy and instrumentality as two key dimensions to study training motivation of french workers.

One of the definitions widely used in recent studies of training motivation (Baldwin et al., 1991; Facteau et al., 1995; Quinones, 1995) is that introduced by Noe in 1986 in the Academy of Management Review. It is inspired by American research on motivation at work (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Training motivation is described as "a specific desire of the trainee to learn the content of the training program". Other definitions refer to the effort exerted in training to learn the course contents (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987), along with Vroom's expectancies theory (1964). Accordingly, Mathieu et al. (1992) describe training motivation as "trainees' perceptions that doing well in a program would lead to better job performance and consequently to valued outcomes." Furthermore, several concepts have been used to describe training motivation. In addition to expectancies theories (Vroom 1964, Porter and Lawler 1968), authors have built upon the studies of Bandura (1977) on self-efficacy and Adams on equity (1965).

Manninen (2004:3) points out that The key question (why adults engage themselves in learning activities and why not?) can be analysed using two different but overlapping theoretical frameworks, which are theories of motivation and theories of participation. Participation [...] deals with the processes which make people to participate in organised training situations. In addition to psychological explanations (cf. Boshier, see Garrison 1987), there has been more sociologically oriented (Lehtonen & Tuomisto 1972) and interaction models (Rubenson 1979) which take into account the wider context and individual life situations.

In a large-scale empirical studies Manninen & Birke (2005) and Konrad (2005) studied the learning motivations of lower qualified workers using a multi-dimensional learning motivation scale that was based on the following concepts (categories). Values, i.e Alpha, Neutral, Beta refer to Dynamic concept analysis (Kontinen, 2002).

Results let to a typology of motivation according to 2 dimensions: Simple work/complex work situation and low/high motivation.

An important finding from this study was that Learning preferences identified by lower qualified workers across the countries (like learning by doing & learning from others) indicate that theoretical models such as shared expertise and cognitive apprenticeship (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1993; Lave & Wenger 1991) are suitable for this target group. (Konrad, 2005:22). The author also makes a connection to constructivism, i.e. knowledge as direct and social experience, and citing Resnik (1991) social processes as cognition.

Thus, when an individual joins an existing group of competent practitioners, they are motivated by membership of that group both to strengthen their identity as learners and, at least as importantly, to promote the success of the group. This process of mastering the virtuous circle of learning to learn is a central part of the process of successful adult learning. In a structured workplace, the role of the competent members is crucial, whether those with formal status (such as supervisors) or as informal leaders.

In practical terms this means that situated motivation will be enhanced by the motivating potential of the instructional design. Adler (2001) suggests:

Motivation is linked to emotions, but emotions an related emotional design of instruction are yet another category of interest: Here is a citation from Astleitner (2000:169): "It is well known in the field of basic and applied research on education and psychology that cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes are related to the world in different ways. Cognitive processes concern the acquisition and representation of knowledge and have a representative relation to the world of objects and facts. Motivational processes refer to goal states of the organism and have an actional relation to the world. Emotional processes are based on the acceptance or rejection of objects and facts and have an evaluational relation to the world (Kuhl, 1986)"

(To do)

Jean-Louis Berger, Stuart A. Karabenick, Motivation and students use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms, Learning and Instruction, Volume 21, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 416-428, ISSN 0959-4752, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886998002025)

Read the original:
Motivation - EduTech Wiki

What makes people do what they do? Why do some people succeed while others fail? The answer just might be motivation. We know that from an early age motivation prompts us to want to learn and exhibit different types of behavior and stimulates us to accomplish new feats of success. As we grow and mature through the different stages of our lives, we hopefully learn what motivates us and what does not.

Motivation is generally defined as the force that compels us to action. It drives us to work hard and pushes us to succeed. Motivation influences our behavior and our ability to accomplish goals.

There are many different forms of motivation. Each one influences behavior in its own unique way. No single type of motivation works for everyone. Peoples personalities vary and so accordingly does the type of motivation, that is most effective at inspiring their conduct.

A form of motivation that involves rewards, both monetary and nonmonetary is often called incentive motivation. Many people are driven by the knowledge that they will be rewarded in some manner for achieving a certain target or goal. Bonuses and promotions are good examples of the type of incentives that are used for motivation.

Fear motivation involves consequences. This type of motivation is often one that is utilized when incentive motivation fails. In a business style of motivation often referred to as the, carrot and stick, incentive is the carrot and fear is the stick.

Punishment or negative consequences are a form of fear motivation. This type of motivation is commonly used to motivate students in the education systemand also frequently in a professional setting to motivate employees. If we break the rules or fail to achieve the set goal, we are penalized in some way.

Achievement motivation is also commonly referred to as the drive for competency. We are driven to achieve goals and tackle new challenges. We desire to improve skills and prove our competency both to others and to ourselves. Generally, this feeling of accomplishment and achievement is intrinsic in nature.

However, in certain circumstances be motivation for achievement may involve external recognition. We often have a desire or need to receive positive feedback from both our peers and our superiors. This may include anything from an award to a simple pat on the back for a job well done.

The need for self-improvement is truly an internal motivation. A burning desire to increase our knowledge of ourselves and of the outside world can be a very strong form of motivation. We seek to learn and grow as individuals.

Motivation for growth can also be seen in our yearning for change. Many of us are wired by our personality or upbringing to constantly seek a change in either our external or internal environment or knowledge. We view stagnation to be both negative and undesirable.

The motivation of power can either take the form of a desire for autonomy or other desire to control others around us. We want to have choices and control over our own lives. We strive for the ability to direct the manner in which we live now and the way our lives will unfold in the future.

We also often aspire to control others around us. The desire for control is stronger in some people than others. In some cases, the craving for power induces people to harmful, immoral, or illegal behavior. In other situations, the longing for power is merely a desire to affect the behavior of others. We simply want people to do what we want, according to our timetable, and the way we want it done.

Many people are motivated by social factors. This may be a desire to belong and to be accepted by a specific peer group or a desire to relate to the people in our sphere or in the larger world. We have an innate need to feel a connection with others. We also have the need for acceptance and affiliation.

A genuine and passionate desire to contribute and to make a difference in the lives of others can be another form of social motivation. If we have a longing to make a contribution to the world around us, it is generally a sign that we are motivated by social factors.

The real importance of understanding the different types of motivation is in our ability to determine which form of motivation is the most effective for inspiring the desired behavior in either others or ourselves. None of these styles of motivation is inherently good or bad, the positive or negative outcome is truly determined by the way they are used.

(Photo credit: Businessman Placing Motivation via Shutterstock)

View post:
6 Types of Motivation Explained - Tips for Life