case study on theories of motivation

20 Most Popular Theories of Motivation in Psychology

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

There is nothing more practical than a good theory.

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

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

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

This Article Contains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry Ford, 1863–1947

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read our insightful post on motivation in education .

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

External motivation

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

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

Introjected motivation

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

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

Identified motivation

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

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

Intrinsic motivation

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

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

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

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

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs

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

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

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

J. O. De La Mettrie

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

Needs serve the organism, and they do so by:

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

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

Alderfer’s ERG theory

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

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

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

McClelland’s achievement motivation theory

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

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

Immanuel Kant

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

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

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory

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

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

Motivation theories explained in 10 minutes – EPM

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

Reinforcement theory

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

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

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

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

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

Adams’ equity theory of motivation

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

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

Vroom’s expectancy theory

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

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

Locke’s goal-setting theory

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

Lock’s recipe for effective goal setting includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory X and Theory Y

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

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

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

The Hawthorne Effect

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

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

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

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimal functioning hypothesis

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

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

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

Hull–Spence drive theory

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

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

Arousal-biased competition theory

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

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

Two memory systems theory

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

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

Processing efficiency theory

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

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

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

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

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

1. Understanding Motivation and Emotion – Johnmarshall Reeve

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

Available on Amazon .

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

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

3. Motivation – Lambert Deckers

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

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

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

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

6. Human Motivation – Robert E. Franken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claude Adrien Helvetius, 1715–1771

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

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

What motivational theory do you find most useful?

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

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

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck with your PhD journey!

Kind regards, Julia | Community Manager

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

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

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

Hope this helps a little!

– Nicole | Community Manager

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

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

Hi Dr. Martin,

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

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

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

Hi Deborah,

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

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

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

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

I hope this article is helpful for you.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

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

How to Encourage Clients to Embrace Change

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

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

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

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

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

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

98k Accesses

15 Citations

23 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura

College Students’ Time Management: a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Basic Motivational Model

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

The basic motivational model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expectancy-Value Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrating situated expectancy-value theory into the basic motivational model

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

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

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

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

Social Cognitive Theory

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

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

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

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

Integrating social cognitive theory into the basic motivational model

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

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

Self-Determination Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrating self-determination theory into the basic motivational model

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

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

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

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

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

Interest Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Integrating interest theory into the basic motivational model

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

Achievement Goal Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution Theory

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

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

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

Integrating attribution theory into the basic motivational model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter Google Scholar

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

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

Google Scholar

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

Article Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44 (2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Detlef Urhahne

Open Universiteit, Heerlen, the Netherlands

Lisette Wijnia

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Detlef Urhahne .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 16 March 2023

Published : 30 March 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

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

14.3 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Learning objectives.

Explain how employees are motivated according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Explain how ERG theory addresses the limitations of Maslow’s hierarchy.
Describe the difference between factors contributing to employee motivation and how these differ from factors contributing to dissatisfaction.
Describe the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation, and how these needs affect work behavior.

The earliest answer to motivation involved understanding individual needs. Specifically, early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate goal-driven behavior to satisfy needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship and his behavior may be a way of satisfying this need. There are four major theories in the need-based category: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, ERG theory, Herzberg’s dual factor theory, and McClelland’s acquired needs theory.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow is among the most prominent psychologists of the 20th century and the hierarchy of needs, accompanied by the pyramid representing how human needs are ranked, is an image familiar to most business students and managers. Maslow’s theory is based on a simple premise: Human beings have needs that are hierarchically ranked (Maslow, 1943; Maslow, 1954). There are some needs that are basic to all human beings, and in their absence, nothing else matters. As we satisfy these basic needs, we start looking to satisfy higher-order needs. Once a lower-level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a motivator.

The most basic of Maslow’s needs are physiological needs . Physiological needs refer to the need for air, food, and water. Imagine being very hungry. At that point, all your behavior may be directed at finding food. Once you eat, though, the search for food ceases and the promise of food no longer serves as a motivator. Once physiological needs are satisfied, people tend to become concerned about safety . Are they safe from danger, pain, or an uncertain future? One level up, social needs refer to the need to bond with other human beings, to be loved, and to form lasting attachments. In fact, having no attachments can negatively affect health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The satisfaction of social needs makes esteem needs more salient. Esteem needs refer to the desire to be respected by one’s peers, feeling important, and being appreciated. Finally, at the highest level of the hierarchy, the need for self-actualization refers to “becoming all you are capable of becoming.” This need manifests itself by acquiring new skills, taking on new challenges, and behaving in a way that will lead to the satisfaction of one’s life goals.

Figure 14.5 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Source : Adapted from Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper.

Maslow’s hierarchy is a systematic way of thinking about the different needs employees may have at any given point and explains different reactions they may have to similar treatment. An employee who is trying to satisfy her esteem needs may feel gratified when her supervisor praises her. However, another employee who is trying to satisfy his social needs may resent being praised by upper management in front of peers if the praise sets him apart from the rest of the group.

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

ERG theory of Clayton Alderfer is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Alderfer, 1969). Instead of the five needs that are hierarchically organized, Alderfer proposed that basic human needs may be grouped under three categories, namely, Existence , Relatedness , and Growth (see the following figure). Existence need corresponds to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs, relatedness corresponds to social needs, and growth need refers to Maslow’s esteem and self actualization.

Figure 14.7 ERG Theory

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

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

Two-Factor Theory

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

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

Figure 14.8 Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

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

Herzberg’s research, which is summarized in the figure above, has received its share of criticism (Cummings & Elsalmi, 1968; House & Wigdor, 1967). One criticism relates to the classification of the factors as hygiene or motivator. For example, pay is viewed as a hygiene factor. However, pay is not necessarily a contextual factor and may have symbolic value by showing employees that they are being recognized for their contributions as well as communicating to them that they are advancing within the company. Similarly, quality of supervision or relationships employees form with their supervisors may determine whether they are assigned interesting work, whether they are recognized for their potential, and whether they take on more responsibilities. Despite its limitations, the two-factor theory can be a valuable aid to managers because it points out that improving the environment in which the job is performed goes only so far in motivating employees.

Figure 14.9

Plaques and other recognition awards may motivate employees if these awards fit with the company culture and if they reflect a sincere appreciation of employee accomplishments.

phjakroon – Pixabay – CC0 public domain.

Acquired Needs Theory

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

Those who have high need for achievement have a strong need to be successful. A worker who derives great satisfaction from meeting deadlines, coming up with brilliant ideas, and planning his or her next career move may be high in need for achievement. Individuals high on need for achievement are well suited to positions such as sales where there are explicit goals, feedback is immediately available, and their effort often leads to success (Harrell & Stahl, 1981; Trevis & Certo, 2005; Turban & Keon, 1993). Because of their success in lower-level jobs, those in high need for achievement are often promoted to higher-level positions (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). However, a high need for achievement has important disadvantages in management. Management involves getting work done by motivating others. When a salesperson is promoted to be a sales manager, the job description changes from actively selling to recruiting, motivating, and training salespeople. Those who are high in need for achievement may view managerial activities such as coaching, communicating, and meeting with subordinates as a waste of time. Moreover, they enjoy doing things themselves and may find it difficult to delegate authority. They may become overbearing or micromanaging bosses, expecting everyone to be as dedicated to work as they are, and expecting subordinates to do things exactly the way they are used to doing (McClelland & Burnham, 1976).

Individuals who have a high need for affiliation want to be liked and accepted by others. When given a choice, they prefer to interact with others and be with friends (Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Their emphasis on harmonious interpersonal relationships may be an advantage in jobs and occupations requiring frequent interpersonal interaction, such as social worker or teacher. In managerial positions, a high need for affiliation may again serve as a disadvantage because these individuals tend to be overly concerned about how they are perceived by others. Thus, they may find it difficult to perform some aspects of a manager’s job such as giving employees critical feedback or disciplining poor performers.

Finally, those with high need for power want to influence others and control their environment. Need for power may be destructive of one’s relationships if it takes the form of seeking and using power for one’s own good and prestige. However, when it manifests itself in more altruistic forms, such as changing the way things are done so that the work environment is more positive or negotiating more resources for one’s department, it tends to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, need for power is viewed as important for effectiveness in managerial and leadership positions (Mcclelland & Burnham, 1976; Spangler & House, 1991; Spreier, 2006).

McClelland’s theory of acquired needs has important implications for motivating employees. While someone who has high need for achievement may respond to goals, those with high need for affiliation may be motivated to gain the approval of their peers and supervisors, whereas those who have high need for power may value gaining influence over the supervisor or acquiring a position that has decision-making authority. And, when it comes to succeeding in managerial positions, individuals who are aware of the drawbacks of their need orientation can take steps to overcome these drawbacks.

Key Takeaway

Need-based theories describe motivated behavior as individual efforts to meet needs. According to this perspective, the manager’s job is to identify what people need and then to make sure that the work environment becomes a means of satisfying these needs. Maslow’s hierarchy categorizes human needs into physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs. ERG theory is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy, where the five needs are collapsed into three categories (existence, relatedness, and growth). The two-factor theory differentiates between factors that make people dissatisfied on the job (hygiene factors) and factors that truly motivate employees. Finally, acquired-needs theory argues that individuals possess stable and dominant motives to achieve, acquire power, or affiliate with others. Each of these theories explains characteristics of a work environment that motivate employees.

Many managers assume that if an employee is not performing well, the reason must be lack of motivation. What is the problem with this assumption?
Review Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Do you agree with the particular ranking of employee needs?
Review the hygiene and motivators in the two-factor theory. Are there any hygiene factors that you would consider to be motivators and vice versa?
A friend of yours is competitive, requires frequent and immediate feedback, and enjoys accomplishing things. She has recently been promoted to a managerial position and seeks your advice. What would you tell her?
Which motivation theory have you found to be most useful in explaining why people behave in a certain way? Why?

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

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 497–529.

Cummings, L. L., & Elsalmi, A. M. (1968). Empirical research on the bases and correlates of managerial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 70 , 127–144.

Harrell, A. M., & Stahl, M. J. (1981). A behavioral decision theory approach for measuring McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 , 242–247.

Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology , 18 , 393–402.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . New York: Wiley.

House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology, 20 , 369–389.

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

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 , 737–743.

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 25 , 159–166.

Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 439–455.

Spreier, S. W. (2006). Leadership run amok. Harvard Business Review, 84 , 72–82.

Trevis, C. S., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 48 , 271–274.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 154–164.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.6(9); 2020 Sep

The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals

Samira alrawahi.

a Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics Department (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

b Pathology Department, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Stina Fransson Sellgren

c Karolinska University Hospital, Affiliated to Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics Department (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Stockholm, Sweden

Salem Altouby

d College of Pharmacy and Nursing, University of Nizwa, Scientific Council for Nursing & Midwifery Specialties, Arab Board of Health Specialization, Cardiff University, UK

Nasar Alwahaibi

e Department of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Mats Brommels

f Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Job satisfaction is an important condition for staff retention in most healthcare Organizations. As a concept, job satisfaction is linked to motivation theory. Herzberg's two factor theory of motivation is used in this study to explore what motivational elements are associated with job satisfaction among medical laboratory professionals (MLPs) in Oman.

A mixed-method approach was adopted, and focus group discussions (FGDs) were used for data collection. The FGDs were conducted in the main hospitals in Oman. Data were analyzed by directed content analysis, and frequencies of statements related to factors were calculated for a comparison with the Herzberg theory.

The following job dissatisfaction factors (hygiene) were identified: health and safety, heavy workload, salary, promotion, recognition and organizational policies. The satisfaction (motivators) were: relationships with co-workers, relationship with leaders, and professional development.

Conclusions

The job dissatisfaction reported was resulted from the absence of hygiene factors and some of the motivators in accordance with Hertzberg's theory. Hospital managers need to address these factors, defined by Hertzberg, in order to improve motivation and job satisfaction.

Psychology; Social science; Occupational psychology; Job satisfaction; Motivation; Herzberg; Medical laboratories.

1. Introduction

1.1. background.

The Sultanate of Oman has reached a level of distinction in its health sector, as the Ministry of Health (MOH) established a health system framework by enrolling large numbers of expatriate healthcare professionals and by introducing a referral system throughout its healthcare organizations. The Sultanate's healthcare system requires people management strategies that consider job satisfaction an important factor underpinning of growth, productivity, human resource development, and staff retention. Such strategies must be capable of assessing the satisfaction of any group through various indicators, such as the quality of the health service provided.

The MOH is the main health service provider in Oman (80%) and accounts for 6.3% of total government expenditures ( The Department of Health Information and Statistics, 2016 ).

The Royal Hospital, Khoula Hospital and Al Nahdha Hospital Each has specialty departments that operate as referral points for patients. Additionally, the hospitals provide tertiary and general acute care. The Royal and Khoula Hospitals enjoy maximum autonomy within the MOH, while the Al Nahdha Hospital is an autonomous hospital within the Directorate Office of the Muscat Governorate. Given the status of these hospitals, it is vital that they are staffed with individuals who are committed to their jobs; as a first step, these individuals must be satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction is the degree of positive affect that an employee feels towards the organization. It may be a general satisfaction with the job or with specific dimensions of the job or workplace, such as promotions, pay, and relationships with coworkers ( Blaauw et al., 2013 ).

Job satisfaction is described as being key in promoting feelings of fulfillment through promotions, recognition, salaries, and the achievement of goals ( Ausloos and Pekalski, 2007 ). George and Jones (2008) defined job satisfaction as a collection of feelings that people have towards their job. Specifically, with respect to health workers, job satisfaction is known to influence motivation, staff performance, and retention, which in turn affect the successful implementation of health system reform ( Wang et al., 2017 ). Motivation among workers requires an encouraging work environment, which does not happen by chance.

A productive environment can be generated by addressing the factors that influence employee job satisfaction and then designing interventions that can be implemented by managers to include and enhance those factors ( Munyewende et al., 2014 ). Unfortunately, in the health sector, there is poor job satisfaction caused by low income, poor working conditions, and limited opportunities for career development within healthcare organizations ( Hotchkiss et al., 2015 ). A recent study reported that 75.3% of health care workers were dissatisfied with their working environment, salary, promotion and benefits, whereas the relationships with leaders and co-workers were satisfaction factors ( Verma et al., 2019 ). In an earlier study pay, promotion, training and development, relations with supervisors, poor working conditions and organizational policies were the main factors for job dissatisfaction among health workers in eastern Ethiopia ( Geleto et al., 2015 ). Lack of professional development and training opportunities reported by 90% of medical laboratory professionals as the most important factor affecting their job satisfaction ( Marinucci et al., 2013 ). On the other hand, the relationships with leaders and peers contributed most to satisfaction, whereas the salary was a dissatisfaction factor ( Lu et al., 2016 ).

Given this scenario, the purpose of this study was to determine the factors that promote job satisfaction for MLPs and to consider MLPs' work motivation in terms of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation. This study is the first of its kind among this group of health professionals in Oman and contributes to developing an understanding of the factors involved in encouraging satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the medical laboratories of the three hospitals concerned. By paying due attention to differences in context, the findings may be generalized to other similar facilities.

1.2. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation

Most theories discuss job satisfaction within the context of motivation ( Kian et al., 2014 ). The Herzberg theory has been used as a method to explore job satisfaction among employees ( Lundberg et al., 2009 ) According to Herzberg's theory of motivation applied to the workplace, there are two types of motivating factors: 1) satisfiers (motivators), which are the main drivers of job satisfaction and include achievements, recognition, responsibility, and work advancement, and 2) dissatisfiers (hygiene factors), which are the main causes of job dissatisfaction ( Herzberg, 1966 ) and include factors such as working conditions, salaries, relationships with colleagues, administrative policies, and supervision. Herzberg used this model to explain that an individual at work can be satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time as these two sets of factors work in separate sequences. For example, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) cannot increase or decrease satisfaction; they can affect only the degree of dissatisfaction. Satisfiers (motivational elements) need to be harmonized with hygiene factors to achieve job satisfaction at work. Managers in healthcare organizations should understand this relationship.

In Maslow's theory of motivation, the lower needs on the proposed pyramid must be met before the higher needs; this idea can be considered parallel to that of motivational and hygiene factors because hygiene factors must be present to allow motivational factors to emerge and thereby prevent job dissatisfaction ( Maslow, 1954 , Maslow, 1954 ). Hence, the motivators in Herzberg's theory are similar to the intrinsic factors (higher needs) in Maslow's theory. The extrinsic factors in Maslow's theory resemble the hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) in Herzberg's two-factor theory.

In 1975, Rogers summarized Herzberg's two-factor theory as follows: “In other words, adequate salary, good working conditions, respected supervisors and likeable co-workers will not produce a satisfied worker; they will only produce a worker who is not dissatisfied. However, their levels must be acceptable in order for the motivation factors to become operative. In other words, like medical hygiene practices, they cannot cure an illness, but they can aid in preventing it” ( Rogers, 1975 ).

1.3. Application of Herzberg's theory in different contexts

Herzberg's two-factor theory has been widely applied in studies on staff satisfaction, but mostly in other industries and for other occupational groups than health professionals. For example, Ruthankoon and Ogunlana tested Herzberg's two factor theory and concluded that different hygiene and motivation factors are applicable in different occupations in the Thai construction industry ( Ruthankoon and Olu Ogunlana, 2003 ). In the Pakistani context, these factors reported to be a strong moderator for job satisfaction among staff in insurance companies ( Rahman et al., 2017 ). Other examples include the hospitality industry ( Hsiao et al., 2016 ) and mobile data services (( Lee et al., 2009 ). We have not found comparable studies in health care, and all types of studies on job satisfaction in clinical laboratories are scarce.

In order to explore the views of medical laboratory professionals on their workplace and what factors had a positive or negative effect on their job satisfaction a series of focus group discussions (FGD) were performed. The advantage of a focus group compared to individual interviews is that the discussion among participants will help to clarify opinions, provoke more in-depth reasoning, and to disclose whether opinions are shared by many. Whilst a focus group discussion is a qualitative research approach, it also enables a semi-quantitative analysis of statements made. This study employs such a mixed-methods approach.

The FGDs were conducted from February to June 2017 at each of the three main MOH hospitals: the Royal, Al Nahdha and Khoula Hospitals.

2.1. Setting and participants

Medical laboratory professionals working in hematology, biochemistry, pathology, and microbiology laboratories including senior and junior staff from the three main hospitals participated in the FGDs: nine groups from the Royal Hospital, five groups from Khoula Hospital, and four groups from Al Nahdha Hospital. Each group had between six and eight participants ( Krueger and Casey, 2015 ).

To obtain this sample, the author sent a letter describing the purpose of the study to the supervisors of each laboratory and asking MLP volunteers. Anonymity (through the use of code names) and confidentiality were strictly observed in recognition of the need for good research ethics and the requirements of Omani and Swedish legislation, as well as to preserve personal integrity. A total of 101 medical laboratory professionals participated in the FGDs. The demography of the participants is exhibited in Appendix I, showing that the participants were representative of all laboratory staff in the three hospitals.

2.2. Focus group discussion (FGD) procedures

The FGDs were moderated by the first author with the support of an observer. The Focus Group discussions gave respondents freedom to express their feelings in order to obtain data representing the purpose of the study. The discussion was facilitated by the first author, following an interview guide, derived from Hertzberg's two factor theory. The FGD sessions lasted between 60 to 90 min. At the end of each discussion, the findings were summarized and shared with the participants (member checking), for validating the results and increasing the credibility of the study ( Birt et al., 2016 ).

2.3. Data analysis

The FGDs were recorded and stored on a USB stick accessible only by the first author. The recorded material was transcribed by the observer and checked against observational and summary notes made by the moderator immediately after each FGD. The transcriptions and additions from the notes were scrutinized by directed content analysis, guided by the Hertzberg two-factor theory. Meaning units expressing opinions of motivating and hygiene factors were identified and condensed into categories and further into themes. Eventually, “cut and paste technique” used manually with a poster and coloured pens ( Krueger, 1996 ). This process was done by the moderator and observer independently. Results were compared and consensus reached after discussions. For each theme, the opinions of FGD participants, were condensed into “statements” and their frequencies were calculated, following the example of Herzberg (1968) . This made it possible to compare the profile of motivating and hygiene factors of medical laboratory professionals with the original theory of Hertzberg.

2.4. Ethics approval and consent to participate

Personal integrity was guaranteed. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants after fully disclosing the purpose of the study. Data storage and handling complied with the requirements of Swedish legislation on research ethics and personal data. The study was approved by the Research and Ethical Review and Approval Committee of MOH in Oman NO: (MH/DGP/R&S/PROPOSAL, 2016).

The FGDs recorded the participant's opinions of the individual needs and other factors that affected their job satisfaction at work; these opinions were condensed into categories and from those eight major themes emerged. (See Table 1 ). The themes are presented together with illustrative citations from the FGDs.

Table 1

Categories and themes related to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction among medical laboratory professionals at Royal, Khoula, and Al Nahdha Hospitals.

	Themes	Categories
Job Satisfaction	Professional development
	Relationships with co-workers
	Relationships with leaders
Job Dissatisfaction	Health and Safety
	Professional status (recognition and appreciation)
	Workload
	Salary and Promotions

3.1. Laboratory health and safety

From participants’ perspective, the major dissatisfier in each of the three hospitals was a lack of health and safety in the laboratories. Poor ventilation and exposure to toxic chemicals were cited reasons in some departments, as well as the receipt of clinical samples without biohazard labels. The lack of biohazard labels was considered to be due to carelessness of some nurses, posing a risk to the laboratory workers.

“Some specimens are sent to the laboratory without a biohazard label, and only after processing will we know it is infectious, such as HIV” (FGD2, RH).

“We are having ventilation problems in the laboratory while processing specimens” (FGD3, NH).

“It is really not safe working in an infectious environment. I was exposed to a viral infection while processing a sample that had no biohazard sticker, and I was treated for three weeks” (FGD2, KH).

3.2. Professional status (recognition and appreciation)

The MLPs believed that there was no appreciation or recognition of their good performance even though they worked in a risky environment. They received no compensation for their commitment in the face of such risk, and felt that because they worked behind the scenes, clinicians were unaware of the time they spent processing samples or the hazards involved in their work.

“The clinicians shout at us if they need the results; in this hospital, the nurses are more recognized than we are” (FGD1, KH).

“We work behind the scenes, we are not appreciated, and we don't want to be called ‘laboratory technicians’. This name should be changed” (FGD2, RH).

“I feel undervalued in this hospital, and I dislike working in the laboratory” (FGD2, NH).

3.3. Heavy workload

FGDs participants identified workload as another dissatisfier, especially when colleagues took unplanned leave, which lead to the accumulation of samples for processing and for others to handle. In addition, the participants mentioned that the night shift workers were overloaded, irrespective of whether personnel were on leave, because samples referred from other hospitals during the day.

“The unplanned leave for staff causes shortages and heavy workload” (FGD2, RH).

“We are overloaded with a continuous flow of samples during the night shift” (FGD5, KH).

3.4. Professional development and training

Professional development emerged as a satisfaction factor for participants from all three hospitals. Indeed, some hospitals had monthly lectures to discuss interesting cases in their departments, and there were also opportunities to attend courses. The Al Nahdha Hospital MLPs expressed satisfaction with their professional development, as they were given the chance to attend training sessions.

“We have good chances for higher education in this hospital” (FGD1, KH).

“I have attended several conferences since I started the job” (FGD2, NH).

3.5. Salary and promotion

The Royal hospital MLPs also reported dissatisfaction with their salaries, believing that they deserved higher salaries and bonuses since they had to work more night shifts than MLPs in other hospitals in the country.

The MLPs in all three main hospitals (the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula Hospitals) also noted that they were unhappy with the new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw, introduced in 2014 for paramedical staff, which defined the rules for the employment, promotion, retention development and termination of medical and allied health personnel. At Al Nahdha Hospital, the new promotion system is by no means clear, there has been no explanation of the system by anyone, and promotions for some technologists have been delayed for a long time. At Khoula Hospital, the MLPs felt that the new Bylaw did not motivate them to work any harder, as the system does not discriminate between a hard worker and others.

At the Royal Hospital, the participants expressed dissatisfaction concerning an overall unfairness of the system, as it does not recognize workers’ formal qualifications; indeed, some of the participants had higher qualifications than others but received exactly the same salary as their less-qualified counterparts.

“The new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw is unfair. I have 26 years of experience. However, I am getting less pay compared to new members of staff” (FGD6, RH).

“We do not have any risk allowance in our work” (FGD3, NH).

“I wish there was some motivation at work in this hospital. Unfortunately, after the new medical bylaw, there is NO difference between a hard worker and others” (FGD5, KH).

3.6. Organization Policies (job descriptions and appraisals)

In the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula Hospitals, the formal job descriptions of MLPs were found to be a dissatisfier. MLPs complained that it was a generic description that was suitable only for junior staff and did not capture what senior staff members do. Other participants from other departments mentioned that, in fact, they did not have job descriptions at all and worked solely based on the instructions of their supervisors. Appraisals emerged as the second sub-factor mentioned in all three focus groups. All the MLPs were dissatisfied with the appraisal process because MLPs are not shown their annual evaluations, and they do not know what is reported about them central administration. MLPs can learn about their annual scores only when they apply for higher education.

“We only have an internal job description from the head of the department, and it is general for all” (FGD1, KH).

“I don't have a job description; I have to work only according to my supervisor's orders” (FGD5, RH).

“We do not see the annual evaluations; the head of the department and the supervisor are allowed to revise them and then send them to the administration” (FGD2, NH).

3.7. Relationships with leaders

In all three hospitals, the relationships between supervisors and MLPs were good.

“There is a good relationship between us and our head of the department, and this makes me happy in this laboratory” (FGD3, RH).

3.8. Relationships with coworkers

The MLPs expressed satisfaction with the relationships between co-workers in the laboratories.

“Everybody is cooperative in the laboratory; we help each other” (FGD1, KH).

The themes derived correspond in most instances with the factors of the Hertzberg theory. Laboratory health and safety in this study corresponds to Herzberg's factors” working condition”. Professional status (recognition and appreciation) is an expression of “recognition” as a job satisfier. The heavy workload in this study represent the “responsibility” in Herzberg's study as a hygiene factor. The “possibility of growth” in Herzberg's study is presented by professional development in this paper. Salary is a hygiene factor. “Advancement” corresponds to promotion. Organization Policies are an expression of “Company policies and administration” and defines the organizational context. Relationships with leaders are equal to “relationships with supervisors” in Herzberg's theory. Also “relationships with peers” in the theory correspond to relationships with co-workers in this study.

As in Hertzberg's theory, the categories identified in the content analysis were could be categorized as hygiene factors motivators; with considerable overlaps, as categories contributed to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction to varying degrees. This is shown in Figure 1 , where the frequencies of all statements derived from the FGDs are displayed, and compared to Hertzberg's original distribution of factors across the motivator and hygiene factor continuum ( Herzberg, 1968 ). The frequencies, specified as percentages, are to be found in ( Table 2 ).

Comparison of hygiene factors and motivators between Herzberg and the MLPs ( Herzberg, 1968 ).

Table 2

The percentage of each factor appearing in the satisfying and dissatisfying sequences from FGDs.

Factors	Satisfying sequences	Dissatisfying sequences
Health and Safety in the laboratories	2%	16%
Workload	7%	15%
Salary	5%	14%
Promotion	8%	14%
Organizational policies	6%	12%
Recognition	3%	12%
Relationships with co-workers	26%	2%
Professional development	22%	4%
Relationships with leaders	21%	3%

As explained by Herzberg's two-factor theory, the results demonstrated that the MLPs were not well motivated by their work environment (see Figure 1 ).

4. Discussion

The absence of health and safety in all laboratories was the most frequently mentioned source of job dissatisfaction among medical laboratory professionals (dissatisfied 16 per cent, and satisfied.

2 per cent). This is in agreement with Herzberg's theory. The dissatisfaction among the research population echoes the results found in a previous study with health workers demonstrating that the health and safety hazards that the workers encountered in their work had negative impacts on them 438 ( Altmaier and Hansen, 2012 ). Exposure to multiple hazards is known to affect the health of groups of workers, as noted by Danna and Griffin (1999) , who found, for example, that allergies and respirator system diseases were 40–50% higher among workers who worked in a poorly ventilated environment.

Maslow's theory of motivation suggests that safety is a lower-order need that must be met before higher-order needs can be satisfied. Likewise, in Herzberg's two-factor theory, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) must be met in order to prevent dissatisfaction, in this case, within a healthcare institution ( Dieleman et al., 2003 ).

A heavy workload quite understandingly leads to job dissatisfaction (dissatisfied 15 per cent, and satisfied 7 per cent). Consequently, it is a hygiene factor, not a motivator as predicted in the Herzberg theory. That this theme is a dissatisfier for health workers was also found in a recent study from Africa ( Temesgen et al., 2018 ).

Salary and promotion seem to play a significant role in demotivating the medical laboratory professionals in the three hospitals (dissatisfied 14 per cent, and satisfied 5 per cent, 8 per cent respectively). They expressed that the new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Bylaw recently introduced was unjust since it does not differentiate between old and new employee as to rewards, and promotion is no longer automatically received, but requires that a new position is established.

Herzberg's two-factor theory suggests that salary is a motivator, but that after some time, it tends to become a dissatisfier (hygiene factor) for employees. In our study, salary is defined as a dissatisfaction factor, while promotion (advancement) is appreciated by participants in our groups of medical laboratory professionals.

Herzberg highlighted the importance of promotion opportunities as a motivating factor among employees ( Herzberg et al., 1959 ). The way workers are rewarded effects productivity and, therefore, the quality of care that must be monitored in health organizations ( WHO, 2006 ).

Consequently, the creation of new positions is important to encourage and retain workers ( Timmreck, 2001 ). This result is consistent with the findings of another study regarding the dissatisfaction of healthcare professionals due to low salaries and poor working conditions ( Wang et al., 2017 ). The finding is similar to those of a previous study conducted in Oman among healthcare professionals in a regional hospital ( Al Maqbali, 2015 ) and of other studies carried out with healthcare workers in Africa ( Deriba et al., 2017 ) and in Pakistan ( Tasneem et al., 2018 ).

The findings regarding the participants’ feelings are consistent with those reported in a previous study performed at the University Hospital in Oman ( Alrawahi et al., 2018 ). As noted by Kosteas (2010) , promotions are the main mechanism for achieving worker retention and satisfaction.

In this study, recognition and organizational policies were mostly a hygiene factor with more dissatisfied than satisfied (12 per cent vs 3 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). How recognition is perceived by the medical laboratory professionals seem to contradict Herzberg's theory, being a hygiene rather than a motivator factor. Organizational policies, on the other hand were in line with the theory.

All of these findings are consistent with those of an earlier study of clinical laboratories ( Doig and Beck, 2019 ). According to Herzberg's two-factor theory, recognition is an important motivator for employees ( Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005 ), but in this study, its importance was reflected in the lack of recognition being a cause of dissatisfaction, There is clear potential for exploitation in such situations. Indeed, the participants with job descriptions complained that they did much more in their laboratories than what the job description outlined and was thus expected of them.

This means that participants have no idea whether they are considered to be performing adequately or well. In addition to complaining about the secrecy of the process, some MLPs also claimed that the head of the department being the evaluator is not appropriate since he or she has no direct contact with them and hence is not in a position to make an objective judgment. This shortcoming was reported in another study with nurses in South Africa ( Pillay, 2009 ).The WHO reported in 2006 that to improve the competence and quality of healthcare workers, their supervision should be enhanced by the provision of clear job descriptions and feedback on performance for junior staff. Any improvement in this respect would serve to motivate MLPs. consequently, the administration should incorporate rather than prevent motivational factors in laboratories.

Relations with co-workers, relation with leaders and professional development are three factors seen as important motivating factors, high on the positive end of the continuum (satisfied 26 per cent, 21 per cent, and 22 per cent respectively. As reported in the study by McAuliffe et al. (2013) , if supervisors are supportive and work cooperatively with subordinates to solve work problems, workers' job satisfaction and motivation can be improved. Hence, Herzberg's proposal that harmonious relationships with work colleagues can prevent dissatisfaction is confirmed ( Byrne, 2006 ). However, in other studies conducted elsewhere, MLPs have been found to be dissatisfied with training and development opportunities. Such findings have been reported in Kuwait ( Al-Enezi et al., 2009 ) and China ( Wang et al., 2017 ).

5. Methodological considerations

This was a qualitative study, utilizing focus group discussions, to throw light on Omani medical laboratory professionals' views of factors related to their job satisfaction, interpreted through the lens of Hertzberg's two-factor theory. As such, the findings cannot be generalized to the whole population of MLPs, although the number of participants was large, and the participants were well representative of the laboratory staff of the three hospitals involved. This made the semi-quantitative analysis, which was used to compare how well the findings corresponded with Hertzberg's theory, possible and defendable. The use of three hospitals as a basis for participant recruitment adds to the trustworthiness of the results. The fact that there were large consistencies in opinions between the groups from the different hospitals reduces the risk that the patterns observed were distorted by the use of the interview method.

However, the choice of FGDs as the primary data collection approach and the quantitative comparison of the distribution of hygiene factors and satisfiers with the original findings of Hertzberg, need to be scrutinized. Hertzberg's study, used as the reference in this analysis, applied the “critical incident technique” (CIT), originally designed by Flanagan, 1954, and collected its data by individual interviews ( Herzberg, 1968 ).

When applying the original CIT approach an interviewee is asked to reflect on a situation (i.e. which led to job dissatisfaction) and to describe how that was related to the outcome. However, later the technique has been developed to engage groups (usually of experts) that identify such critical incidents and formulate those as “statements” ( Gordon, 2014 ). Focus group interviews of MLPs were thus chosen as the main data collection method in order to capitalize on the strengths of that method. The main advantage is that the discussion initiated will increase the probability that different perspectives and opinions are expressed. A focus group of peers will also increase the possibility that more important issues are separated from less important ones, and whether there is agreement or disagreement, thus resembling the process of an expert group involved in a CIT exercise or a consensus producing nominal group ( Tausch and Menold, 2016 ). On the other hand, the disadvantages of using FGDs must also be raised, such as participants being more or less vocal, and that sensitive topics might be less easy to comment when in a group, and that group pressure might silence participants. We have to acknowledge that those risks might have materialized during the FGD sessions, potentially distorting the results. However, we reasoned that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, and enable us to perform both the content analysis of the material and the quantitative comparison with Hertzberg's original profile of factors.

6. Conclusions

Several important conclusions can be drawn based on the review of the literature related to job satisfaction in general and in healthcare specifically and the empirical study with MLPs from the three main hospitals in Oman. In particular, this study suggests that the main source of dissatisfaction is a lack of laboratory health and safety; heavy workloads; the promotion system, which is perceived as unfair and unworkable; poor salaries; certain organizational policies (namely, the appraisal system and inappropriate job descriptions); and the lack of recognition for the professional status of the MLPs by other colleagues outside of the laboratories, who have no appreciation of the work that MLPs perform.

To address these dissatisfiers, these hospitals must be acknowledged as referral hospital that receive more samples than other hospitals, and, consequently, to safe-guard a greater laboratory workforce to ensure that MLPs are not overloaded. Additionally, the issue of wider-scale awareness within the hospitals of the value of MLPs should be considered.

Additionally, as the MLPs were dissatisfied with the opportunities for promotion resulting from the newly introduced Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw, policy-makers should consider to re-evaluate that legislation.

A decline in the recognition of MLPs’ efforts brought less productivity and commitment, whereas an increase in the recognition of their work and professionalism will promote satisfaction.

MLPs' unhappiness with their overall conditions, and especially with the level of health and safety in the laboratories, function as dissatisfiers, yet improvements in their relationship with leaders (through the recognition of their worth) will increase their satisfaction. The dissatisfaction experienced by the research population is a result of the absence of factors that cause satisfaction, and consequently, it is the responsibility of hospital administrations to develop good systems to improve MLPs’ job satisfaction. Effective cooperation between the laboratory managers and hospital administrations will enable the achievement of job satisfaction among MLPs.

Therefore, it is essential that hospital management pays attention to hygiene factors of importance to this group of healthcare professionals to avoid job dissatisfaction and simultaneously provide motivators within the working environment to achieve job satisfaction.

This study is one of the few analyzing factors of importance for the job satisfaction of medical laboratory professionals. It was performed in three hospitals in Oman, and the results cannot necessarily be generalized to other contexts. It did, though, highlight which factors of a widely used theory on staff motivation that promote or reduce job satisfaction in this specific group of health professionals. Applying those insights, carefully tailored to the organizational context in question, might lead to improved working conditions in medical laboratories beyond our study setting also.

Most, but not all, of the factors of Herzberg's Motivation Theory were identified in our study. Depending on different contexts, the motivation figure of employees will vary from one setting to another. Since what is recognized as a motivator in one culture may be a de-motivator in another culture ( Al-Akeel and Jahangir, 2020 ). Comparative studies could shed light on how Herzberg's theory is best applied in different organizational contexts.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

S. A. Al Rawahi: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

S. Fransson Sellgren, M. Brommels: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

N. Al Wahaibi, S. Al Touby: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry Of Higher Education, Research and Innovation Sultanate of Oman, his Majesty Sultan Qaboos Grant.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the participants of medical laboratory professionals and the leaders in the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula hospitals for their cooperation in order to carry out this study.

Appendix I.

Table 3.

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Royal Hospital

Sociodemographic Variables	Royal Population		FGD Participants
Sociodemographic Variables	No.	%	No.	%

<25	4	3	1	2
25-34	41	30	28	54
35-44	54	39	16	31
45-54	31	23	5	10
>54	7	5	2	4

Male	63	46	24	46
Female	74	54	28	54

<5	31	23	28	54
5-9	41	30	15	29
10-14	20	15	3	6
15-20	23	17	3	6
>20	22	16	3	6

Omani	81	59	17	33
Non-Omani	56	41	35	67

Hematology	41	30	19	37
Microbiology	36	26	9	17
Biochemistry	33	24	14	27
Histopathology	27	20	10	19

Table 4

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Al Nahdha Hospital

Sociodemographic Variables	Al Nahdha Population		FGD Participants
Sociodemographic Variables	No.	%	No.	%

<25	0	0	0	0
25-34	8	28	6	32
35-44	11	38	7	37
45-54	8	28	6	32
>54	2	7	0	0

Male	8	28	5	26
Female	21	72	14	74

<5	5	17	7	37
5-9	5	17	5	26
10-14	6	21	1	5
15-20	10	35	6	32
>20	3	10	0	0

Omani	11	38	4	21
Non-Omani	18	62	15	79

General Lab	29	100	19	100

Table 5

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Khoula Hospital

Sociodemographic Variables	Khoula Population		FGD Participants
Sociodemographic Variables	No.	%	No.	%

<25	2	3	1	3
25-34	13	18	10	33
35-44	35	49	15	50
45-54	19	27	3	10
>54	2	3	1	3

Male	22	31	5	83
Female	49	69	25	17

<5	17	24	10	33
5-9	16	23	7	23
10-14	15	21	9	30
15-20	14	20	3	10
>20	9	13	1	3

Omani	37	52	11	33
Non-Omani	34	48	19	67

Hematology	28	39	11	37
Microbiology	26	37	10	33
Biochemistry	17	24	9	30

Al Maqbali M. Job satisfaction of nurses in a regional hospital in Oman. J. Nurs. Res. 2015; 23 (3):206–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Al-Akeel N., Jahangir S. Relationship between employees’ cultural background and work motivation (according to McClelland’s need theory of motivation) Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020; 24 (Special Issue 1):156–163. [ Google Scholar ]
Al-Enezi N., Chowdhury R., Shah M., Al-Otabi M. Job satisfaction of nurses with multicultural backgrounds: a questionnaire survey in Kuwait. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2009; 22 (2):94–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alrawahi S., Sellgren S., Alwahaibi N., Altouby S., Brommels M. Factors affecting job satisfaction among medical laboratory technologists in University Hospital, Oman: an exploratory study. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 2018; 34 (1):e763–e775. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Altmaier E., Hansen J. first ed. Oxford University Press; New York: 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Counseling Psychology. [ Google Scholar ]
Ausloos M., Pekalski A. Model of wealth and goods dynamics in a closed market. Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 2007; 373 :560–568. [ Google Scholar ]
Bassett Jones N., Lloyd G. Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? J. Manag. Dev. 2005; 24 (10):929–943. [ Google Scholar ]
Birt L., Scott S., Cavers D., Campbell C., Walter F. Member checking. Qual. Health Res. 2016; 26 (13):1802–1811. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blaauw D., Ditlopo P., Maseko F., Chirwa M., Mwisongo A., Bidwell P. Comparing the job satisfaction and intention to leave of different categories of health workers in Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa. Glob. Health Action. 2013; 6 (1):19287. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Byrne M. The implications of Herzberg's "Motivation-Hygiene" theory for management in the Irish health sector. Health Care Manag. 2006; 25 (1):4–11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Danna K., Griffin R. Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. J. Manag. 1999; 25 (3):357–384. [ Google Scholar ]
Deriba B., Sinke S., Ereso B., Badacho A. Health professionals’ job satisfaction and associated factors at public health centers in West Ethiopia. Hum. Resour. Health. 2017; 15 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dieleman M., Cuong P., Anh L., Martineau T. Identifying factors for job motivation of rural health workers in North Viet Nam. Hum. Resour. Health. 2003; 1 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Doig K., Beck S. Factors contributing to the retention of clinical laboratory personnel. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2019; 18 (1) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geleto A., Baraki N., Atomsa G., Dessie Y. Job satisfaction and associated factors among health care providers at public health institutions in Harari region, eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res. Notes. 2015; 8 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
George J., Jones G. fifth ed. Pearson Education; Upper Saddle River, NJ: 2008. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. [ Google Scholar ]
Gordon L. LR Gordon, Incorporated; 2014. Critical Incident Technique; pp. 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
Herzberg F. first ed. World Publishing Company; Cleveland: 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. [ Google Scholar ]
Herzberg F. One more time:How do you motivate employee? Harv. Bus. Rev. 1968; 46 (January-February):53–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Herzberg F., Mausner B., Snydermann B. second ed. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 1959. The Motivation to Work. [ Google Scholar ]
Hotchkiss D., Banteyerga H., Tharaney M. Job satisfaction and motivation among public sector health workers: evidence from Ethiopia. Hum. Resour. Health. 2015; 13 (1):83–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hsiao A., Ma E., Auld C. Organizational ethnic diversity and employees’ satisfaction with hygiene and motivation factors—a comparative IPA approach. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 2016; 26 (2):144–163. [ Google Scholar ]
Kian T., Wan W., Rajah S. European journal of business and social sciences. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2014; 3 (2):94–102. [ Google Scholar ]
Kosteas V. Job satisfaction and promotions. Ind. Relat.: J. Econ. Soc. 2010; 50 (1):174–194. [ Google Scholar ]
Krueger R. In: 2d edition. Krueger Richard A., editor. Vol. 13. Sage Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1996. pp. 273–274. (Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research). 1994. 255 + xiv pages. $21.50. Journal Of Product Innovation Management. [ Google Scholar ]
Krueger R., Casey M. SAGE; Los Angeles: 2015. Focus Groups. [ Google Scholar ]
Lee S., Shin B., Lee H. Understanding post-adoption usage of mobile data services: the role of supplier-side variables. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. Online. 2009; 10 (12):860–888. [ Google Scholar ]
Lu Y., Hu X., Huang X., Zhuang X., Guo P., Feng L. Job satisfaction and associated factors among healthcare staff: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China. BMJ Open. 2016; 6 (7) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lundberg C., Gudmundson A., Andersson T. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Manag. 2009; 30 (6):890–899. [ Google Scholar ]
Marinucci F., Majigo M., Wattleworth M., Paterniti A., Hossain M., Redfield R. Factors affecting job satisfaction and retention of medical laboratory professionals in seven countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Hum. Resour. Health. 2013; 11 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maslow A. first ed. Harper & Brothers; New York: 1954. Motivation and Personality. [ Google Scholar ]
Maslow A. The instinctoid nature of basic Needs1. J. Pers. 1954; 22 (3):326–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McAuliffe E., Daly M., Kamwendo F., Masanja H., Sidat M., de Pinho H. The critical role of supervision in retaining staff in obstetric services: a three country study. PloS One. 2013; 8 (3) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Munyewende P., Rispel L., Chirwa T. Positive practice environments influence job satisfaction of primary health care clinic nursing managers in two South African provinces. Hum. Resour. Health. 2014; 12 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pillay R. Work satisfaction of professional nurses in South Africa: a comparative analysis of the public and private sectors. Hum. Resour. Health. 2009; 7 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rahman K., Akhter W., Khan S. Factors affecting employee job satisfaction: a comparative study of conventional and Islamic insurance. Cogent Business & Management. 2017; 4 (1) [ Google Scholar ]
Rogers R. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975; 91 (1):93–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ruthankoon R., Olu Ogunlana S. Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 2003; 10 (5):333–341. [ Google Scholar ]
Tasneem S., Cagatan A., Avci M., Basustaoglu A. Job satisfaction of health service providers working in a public tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Open Publ. Health J. 2018; 11 (1):17–27. [ Google Scholar ]
Tausch A., Menold N. Methodological aspects of focus groups in health research. Global Qualitative Nursing Res. 2016; 3 233339361663046. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Temesgen K., Aycheh M., Leshargie C. Job satisfaction and associated factors among health professionals working at Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Health Qual. Life Outcome. 2018; 16 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
The Department of Health Information and Statistics . Ministry of Health; 2016. Annual Health Report 2016. https://www.moh.gov.om/en/web/statistics/-/20-44 Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
Timmreck T. Managing motivation and developing job satisfaction in the health care work environment. Health Care Manag. 2001; 20 (1):42–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Verma M., Singh T., Kaur M., Kumar R. Job satisfaction among health care providers: a cross-sectional study in public health facilities of Punjab, India. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care. 2019; 8 (10):3268. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang H., Tang C., Zhao S., Meng Q., Liu X. Job satisfaction among health-care staff in township health centers in rural China: results from a latent class Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2017; 14 (10):1101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
WHO The World Health Report 2006 - working together for health. 2006. https://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/ Retrieved from. [ PubMed ]

Web References

The Department of Health Information and Statistics Annual health report 2016. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.moh.gov.om/en/web/statistics/-/20-44 .
WHO The world health report 2006 - working together for health. 2006. https://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/ Retrieved from. [ PubMed ]

What keeps employees motivated

Psychologists are expanding their efforts to get research on what motivates people at work to employers at a time when the workplace is changing dramatically

Vol. 52 No. 7 Print version: page 52

Personality
Managing Human Capital

artwork depicting an office worker removing a smile from a face

The upheaval of the working world since March 2020 has no precedent in living memory. Some people went home for what they thought would be weeks, only to still be working from home more than a year and a half later. Others were left to struggle through enormous stresses in front-line occupations. It was, in short, a tough year for workplace motivation.

Yet psychological research suggests that there are ways businesses can support their employees moving forward even as the pandemic slips into a new phase of uncertainty. Much of this work comes from decades of research on the impacts of stress in the workplace and how job pressures influence motivation, said James Diefendorff, PhD, an industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologist at the University of Akron.

“Those demands consume regulatory resources, lead to faster emotional exhaustion and depletion, and require more opportunities for replenishment,” Diefendorff said. “It’s just amped up in the context of working under the various additional stressors and demands that the pandemic has introduced.”

Motivation in a pandemic

One of the key findings from I/O psychology over the past several decades is that not all workplace stresses are created equal. Some stressors are hindrances, which are things outside of an employee’s control that feel like barriers to performance: red tape, lack of resources, conflicting goals. Others are challenges, which feel like tasks that a person can overcome while growing and improving. An example of a challenge stressor might be learning a new skill to take on a new job responsibility. A meta-analysis led by Jeffery LePine, PhD, a researcher in organizational behavior at Arizona State University, found that while hindrance stressors crush motivation, challenge stressors actually boost it ( Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 48, No. 5, 2005 ). Research further suggests that people find challenge stressors motivating because they expect that if they put the work in, they can achieve an outcome they value. Hindrance stressors, on the other hand, feel insurmountable—no matter how hard you work, a satisfactory result is out of reach.

Many of the stressors introduced by COVID-19 were hindrance stressors, said Thomas Britt, PhD, an I/O psychologist at Clemson University. This was particularly true in health care, where limited personal protective equipment early in the pandemic put workers at risk. Hindrance stressors also abounded in other professions, such as in education, where teachers had to try to teach in far-from-ideal remote-learning circumstances.

The impact of the pandemic on workers is also clear through the lens of self-determination theory , a framework for understanding motivation developed by psychologists Richard Ryan, PhD, a professor at Australian Catholic University, and Edward Deci, PhD, a professor emeritus at the University of Rochester. Research into self-determination theory finds that three main psychological needs support optimal motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness ( Annual Reviews of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , Vol. 4, 2017 ). The pandemic has been a disaster for all three, said Susan Fowler, a San Diego–based motivation consultant who uses self-determination theory as the basis for her work. Suddenly, many workers were being told they had no choice but to stay home, Fowler said. They were being asked to do things that made them feel bumbling and helpless, such as interacting solely via Zoom. And the necessity of social distancing meant they were often isolated from their colleagues.

At the same time, working from home reduced hindrance stressors—such as commutes—for some workers. Researchers, clinicians, and coaches alike are now tapping into basic research to show people how to connect with their own motivation and goals, especially when external circumstances challenge them.

“Motivation researchers are active in workplaces, classrooms, sports . . . pretty much anywhere people would be engaged,” Ryan said. “We want to find out, what are the internal factors that facilitate that engagement?”

Building optimal motivation

Research has turned up several good answers to that question. One of the most motivating experiences employees can have is making progress on a meaningful task, said Teresa Amabile, PhD, a social and organizational psychologist at Harvard Business School. Amabile and her colleagues asked more than 200 employees at seven companies in the tech, chemical, and consumer products industries to write daily diary entries describing events at work and rate their own feelings of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, creativity, and collegiality, among other measures. They also collected periodic ratings of the workers’ creativity from colleagues ( Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 50, No. 3, 2005 ).

“We could look at how the events that were occurring impacted their intrinsic motivation and their creativity,” Amabile said.

When people reported more intrinsic motivation, their creativity simultaneously rose, she said. So did other desirable states such as productivity, collegiality, and commitment to work. And what spurred intrinsic motivation? Amabile and her team found that the most powerful precursor was the feeling of making progress at meaningful work.

“Here’s what’s interesting: It doesn’t have to be a huge breakthrough,” Amabile said. “It can be small, almost trivial, steps forward.”

This finding fit with previous I/O psychology research. For example, job characteristics theory, developed in 1975 by Greg Oldham, PhD, an I/O psychologist now at Tulane University, and J. Richard Hackman, PhD, a social psychologist now at Harvard University, holds that meaningfulness is one of the three factors leading to motivation, along with responsibility and knowledge of results.

Anecdotal reports during the pandemic suggest that the winnowing effect of work-from-home policies actually boosted feelings of progress for many employees, Amabile said. With time freed from long commutes, random coworker interruptions, and morning makeup and hair-care routines, workers often felt they got more meaningful work done each day.

However, there are caveats to the benefits of meaningful work, said Britt. He and his colleagues surveyed U.S. working adults in multiple industries using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website during the pandemic and found that mental health symptoms after hindrance stressors were more severe in those who felt a “calling” to their work ( Work & Stress , Vol. 35, No. 2, 2021 ). “Encountering these demands that you can’t control and that harm your performance is going to be particularly impactful for those who feel called to do the work and feel the work is highly important,” Britt said.

Furthermore, in a study of emergency department physicians, Britt and his colleagues found that a sense of meaning in work did not buffer doctors from mental health strain early in the pandemic ( Applied Psychology , online first publication, 2020 ). That was a surprise, Britt said, but it may indicate that when hindrance stressors become too overwhelming, a sense of purpose isn’t enough to rescue one’s sense of well-being at work.

Leading to motivate

One lesson from these findings is that workplaces need to make sure their employees have the basic resources they need to perform their job duties, Britt said. In times of crisis, workers also need extra time to rest and recover from stress. Listening to employee feedback and responding to their needs can help administrators and managers reduce hindrance stressors among their workers.

There are also strategies that workers themselves can use to boost their own motivation, Diefendorff said. These range from motivation-control strategies, such as setting subgoals and rewards for meeting them, to attention-control strategies to minimize disruptions and interruptions. Emotion-regulation strategies such as minimizing anxiety and worry can also be helpful for goal-setting, he said. But workers might also need to recognize when they’re too tapped out to use these strategies effectively. “You have to have self-compassion, which basically means cutting yourself some slack as a way to give yourself the time and space you need to try to recover your depleted resources,” Diefendorff said.

In general, Amabile said, managers can help by encouraging employees to see ways in which their work is meaningful and by providing clear goals and benchmarks for progress. Step back, micromanagers: The most motivationally beneficial leadership style is one that encourages employees to manage their own workflows and solve their own problems.

This style is called leader autonomy support, and it’s characterized by a manager who encourages their employees to self-initiate tasks, to share their own perspectives, and to make their own choices, while still stepping in to support them when needed.

A meta-analysis led by Ryan found that leader autonomy support fosters employees’ sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness within the workplace, which boosts autonomous work motivation. This self-derived motivation, in turn, is linked to feelings of well-being and engagement as well as declines in distress and improvements in positive behaviors at work ( Motivation and Emotion , Vol. 42, No. 5, 2018 ). The meta-analysis included studies from multiple countries, including Iran, the Philippines, Korea, Bulgaria, Holland, China, New Zealand, and South Africa. Ryan said that this beneficial effect of leader autonomy support seemed to hold in workplaces worldwide and that autonomy improved productivity, commitment, and satisfaction with work in both collectivist and individualistic societies.

“Regardless of culture, if you don’t have a sense of freedom and choice in your work activities, your well-being is undermined,” Ryan said.

Putting research in action

With the onset of the pandemic, motivational experts, like many other workers, moved online. Ryan and his colleagues at his consulting business, motivationWorks , found themselves coaching business leaders dealing with vastly different circumstances. Managers suddenly working with largely remote teams had to find ways to support their employees’ sense of competence to help them tackle the challenges that remote work created, Ryan said. Managers overseeing essential workers, on the other hand, faced a different set of issues.

“Especially in the health care industry, where we are doing extensive work, job stressors were manifold,” Ryan said. “Here, again, autonomy-supportive leaders were better able to hear and respond to the needs of their employees, which was crucial during this challenging period.”

Motivation research applies to a broad range of workplaces, far beyond the stereotypical white-collar office setting. Ryan and his colleagues found, for example, that autonomy, feelings of competence, and feelings of relatedness or connection within the workplace all positively influence job satisfaction and general mental health in a factory setting ( Journal of Applied Social Psychology , Vol. 23, No. 21, 1993 ). A case study led by Philip Cheng-Fei Tsai, PhD, of Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages in Taiwan, that analyzed a Taiwanese manufacturing company undergoing a downsizing found that while managers thought factory workers were most motivated by the company’s salary and benefit structure and the opportunity for education and training, the factory workers were actually most driven by relationships with their colleagues and the extent to which their jobs allowed them to cultivate their relationships with their families ( Journal of World Business , Vol. 42, No. 2, 2007 ).

“In context where people can feel a sense of autonomy, where they can feel a sense of competence, and where they can feel connected and related to the people around them, that’s where they have the highest-quality motivation,” Ryan said.

Fowler saw a particularly emotional example of this in her work with a large construction firm during the pandemic. A supervisor she was working with noticed that one of his employees was frequently late and struggling at work. The supervisor made a stab at connection and asked the employee if he was homeschooling his kids, pointing out that remote learning was a struggle in his own home. The employee broke down. His wife was an emergency room nurse, he said. They had two kids in early elementary school and no family help. He was working around the clock to try to juggle it all.

The supervisor called together his team and explained the situation. Working together, the rest of the team shuffled their own schedules to make life easier for the struggling father. The result, the supervisor told Fowler, was that the entire staff felt like they were doing something good. Given choice and autonomy, they could support the family of a health care worker and feel a sense of connectedness rather than inconvenience.

“[The supervisor] said, ‘I learned that being empathetic and just having a casual conversation with someone may be one of the greatest gifts I can give my people as a leader,’” Fowler said.

Emotional connection can be powerful. In his work with business leaders, clinical and organizational psychologist and consultant George Kohlrieser, PhD, focuses on bonding. This can be a hard sell in some business cultures—he counts among his success stories a heavy-machinery dealership in South Carolina where he helped change the culture from one of aloof detachment to one where employees felt bonded to one another. Such connections foster employees’ sense of psychological safety, or the feeling that the workplace is a safe environment to take risks and be vulnerable.

With vaccination widely available in the United States, employers are increasingly calling workers back into offices. They’ll need to feel safe there—not only from new outbreaks of COVID-19 but also from the new uncertainties introduced by a year or more of remote work. Many industries are turning to hybrid solutions for employees who can work from home and who have realized that they don’t want to go back to cubicles and commutes, Ryan said.

“People have been able to experience firsthand that they can self-regulate their work efforts and also balance work demands with the things that matter most outside of work,” Ryan said. “Their horizons have been expanded, and I think we will see increasing demands for empowering work conditions.”

The key detail to making this work, Fowler said, is ensuring that every employee gets equal consideration, even if the ultimate workplace arrangement isn’t the same across the entire company. Some jobs require face time more than others, she said, but those employees should still have their needs considered and be offered as much autonomy as possible. Certain types of job training or mentoring, for example, might need to be done in person, but employees could still get opportunities to autonomously decide when or how they fulfill these responsibilities.

“Not everyone is going to get the same deal, but everyone should have the same consideration and conversation,” Fowler said.

Life span motivation

Not all workplacerelevant research starts out in studies of employees. Carol S. Dweck, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, did much of her early research on how the types of goals people have influence their levels of motivation in school. She found that when students were motivated by the desire to learn and become better at something, they bounced back from failure much more readily than when they were motivated by external carrots and sticks, such as the desire to get outside approval or avoid negative judgment ( Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 54, No. 1, 1988 ). Out of this research, Dweck and her colleagues coined the well-known notion of a “growth mindset,” which views intelligence as malleable and failure as an opportunity to learn.

Expanding out of the educational system, Dweck and her colleagues have discovered that their growth mindset framework applies in workplaces. For example, they’ve found that the more that employees view their company leadership as cultivating a growth mindset—rather than a fixed mindset in which ability and intelligence are immutable—the greater trust and commitment they have in their organization ( Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2018 ).

Researchers who study motivation in schools also provide perspective on how to teach motivation habits early, as well as how to avoid squelching kids’ intrinsic motivation before they even get their first job interview. These lessons may be particularly important as children return to the classroom after a year of disruptions and remote learning.

“There is pretty strong research that shows that the motivation in academic subjects during adolescence is an extremely strong predictor of people’s career trajectories later in life,” said Eric Anderman, PhD, a professor of educational psychology at The Ohio State University. Unfortunately, the traditional incentives of education don’t do much to kindle that motivation.

“As kids move up through the grades, the focus of school—the purpose of school—becomes more about getting grades and doing well and less about learning,” Anderman said.

Paralleling Dweck’s findings, Anderman and his colleagues have found that taking a mastery-based approach to education rather than a reward-based approach can improve motivation-related outcomes like task efficacy, knowledge, and behavioral intentions ( Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 112, No. 5, 2020 ). The hope is that instilling these habits early can immunize people against the motivation-killing norms they might face in the work world.

“In terms of preparing people for the real world, we do have to acknowledge that workplaces are competitive and there are going to be extrinsic outcomes,” Anderman said. “But it’s how we train people to cope with it. We don’t want to send them out of school with the message that they have to be number one at everything.”

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

Jump to section

What is a motivation theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Self-determination theory

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

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

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

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

2. Maslow’s theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Herzberg’s theory

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

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

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

4. McClelland’s theory

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

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

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

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

5. Vroom’s theory

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

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

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

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

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

6. McGregor’s theory

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

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

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

7. Alderfer’s theory

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

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

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

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

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

8. Skinner’s theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead with confidence and authenticity

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

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

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

You need more than a quote to motivate a team

How building trust is the true secret to motivating sales teams, 5 real-time recognition tactics that drive engagement and retention, developing agility and resilience in the core of your organization, 50 teamwork quotes to motivate and inspire your team, the ultimate guide to motivating a team — and why it matters, how to use motivational interview questions to drive change, work the motivation: 10 ways to keep your team inspired, is the carrot-and-stick approach right for your team, how to handle a lack of motivation at work, how do employee benefits work, reward power in the workplace and how to motivate employees, how to help leaders play up their unique superpowers, why the secret to great coaching lies in motivation, 6 tactics to unlock operational excellence and drive performance, betterup scales human impact with acquisition of motive and impraise, 6 employee coaching examples to empower agile teams, how inclusive leadership impacts your entire business, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

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

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

BUS209: Organizational Behavior

Theories of Motivation

This article will introduce you to the basic needs of employees in the workplace. As you read, concentrate on the role of motivation in determining employee performance. Think back to our discussion on equity theory. How are fairness perceptions determined, and what are the consequences of these perceptions? You will also read about motivational theories and how you can use these theories to improve motivation in your workplace.

Introduction

Learning objectives.

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

14.4 Recent Research on Motivation Theories

Describe the modern advancements in the study of human motivation.

Employee motivation continues to be a major focus in organizational behavior. 35 We briefly summarize current motivation research here.

Content Theories

There is some interest in testing content theories (including Herzberg’s two-factor theory), especially in international research. Need theories are still generally supported, with most people identifying such workplace factors as recognition, advancement, and opportunities to learn as the chief motivators for them. This is consistent with need satisfaction theories. However, most of this research does not include actual measures of employee performance. Thus, questions remain about whether the factors that employees say motivate them to perform actually do.

Operant Conditioning Theory

There is considerable interest in operant conditioning theory, especially within the context of what has been called organizational behavior modification. Oddly enough, there has not been much research using operant conditioning theory in designing reward systems, even though there are obvious applications. Instead, much of the recent research on operant conditioning focuses on punishment and extinction. These studies seek to determine how to use punishment appropriately. Recent results still confirm that punishment should be used sparingly, should be used only after extinction does not work, and should not be excessive or destructive.

Equity Theory

Equity theory continues to receive strong research support. The major criticism of equity theory, that the inputs and outcomes people use to evaluate equity are ill-defined, still holds. Because each person defines inputs and outcomes, researchers are not in a position to know them all. Nevertheless, for the major inputs (performance) and outcomes (pay), the theory is a strong one. Major applications of equity theory in recent years incorporate and extend the theory into the area called organizational justice. When employees receive rewards (or punishments), they evaluate them in terms of their fairness (as discussed earlier). This is distributive justice. Employees also assess rewards in terms of how fair the processes used to distribute them are. This is procedural justice. Thus during organizational downsizing, when employees lose their jobs, people ask whether the loss of work is fair (distributive justice). But they also assess the fairness of the process used to decide who is laid off (procedural justice). For example, layoffs based on seniority may be perceived as more fair than layoffs based on supervisors’ opinions.

Goal Theory

It remains true that difficult, specific goals result in better performance than easy and vague goals, assuming they are accepted. Recent research highlights the positive effects of performance feedback and goal commitment in the goal-setting process. Monetary incentives enhance motivation when they are tied to goal achievement, by increasing the level of goal commitment. There are negative sides to goal theory as well. If goals conflict, employees may sacrifice performance on important job duties. For example, if both quantitative and qualitative goals are set for performance, employees may emphasize quantity because this goal achievement is more visible.

Expectancy Theory

The original formulation of expectancy theory specifies that the motivational force for choosing a level of effort is a function of the multiplication of expectancies and valences. Recent research demonstrates that the individual components predict performance just as well, without being multiplied. This does not diminish the value of expectancy theory. Recent research also suggests that high performance results not only when the valence is high, but also when employees set difficult goals for themselves.

One last comment on motivation: As the world of work changes, so will the methods organizations use to motivate employees. New rewards—time off instead of bonuses; stock options; on-site gyms, cleaners, and dental services; opportunities to telecommute; and others—will need to be created in order to motivate employees in the future. One useful path that modern researchers can undertake is to analyze the previous studies and aggregate the findings into more conclusive understanding of the topic through meta-analysis studies. 36

Catching the Entrepreneurial Spirit

Entrepreneurs and motivation.

Motivation can be difficult to elicit in employees. So what drives entrepreneurs, who by definition have to motivate themselves as well as others? While everyone from Greek philosophers to football coaches warn about undirected passion, a lack of passion will likely kill any start-up. An argument could be made that motivation is simply part of the discipline, or the outcome of remaining fixed on a purpose to mentally remind yourself of why you get up in the morning.

Working from her home in Egypt, at age 30 Yasmine El-Mehairy launched Supermama.me, a start-up aimed at providing information to mothers throughout the Arab world. When the company began, El-Mehairy worked full time at her day job and 60 hours a week after that getting the site established. She left her full-time job to manage the site full time in January 2011, and the site went live that October. El-Mehairy is motivated to keep moving forward, saying that if she stops, she might not get going again (Knowledge @ Wharton 2012).

For El-Mehairy, the motivation didn’t come from a desire to work for a big company or travel the world and secure a master’s degree from abroad. She had already done that. Rather, she said she was motivated to “do something that is useful and I want to do something on my own” (Knowledge @ Wharton 2012 n.p.).

Lauren Lipcon, who founded a company called Injury Funds Now, attributes her ability to stay motivated to three factors: purpose, giving back, and having fun outside of work. Lipcon believes that most entrepreneurs are not motivated by money, but by a sense of purpose. Personally, she left a job with Arthur Andersen to begin her own firm out of a desire to help people. She also thinks it is important for people to give back to their communities because the change the entrepreneur sees in the community loops back, increasing motivation and making the business more successful. Lipcon believes that having a life outside of work helps keep the entrepreneur motivated. She particularly advocates for physical activity, which not only helps the body physically, but also helps keep the mind sharp and able to focus (Rashid 2017).

But do all entrepreneurs agree on what motivates them? A July 17, 2017 survey on the hearpreneur blog site asked 23 different entrepreneurs what motivated them. Seven of the 23 referred to some sense of purpose in what they were doing as a motivating factor, with one response stressing the importance of discovering one’s “personal why.” Of the remaining entrepreneurs, answers varied from keeping a positive attitude (three responses) and finding external sources (three responses) to meditation and prayer (two responses). One entrepreneur said his greatest motivator was fear: the fear of being in the same place financially one year in the future “causes me to take action and also alleviates my fear of risk” (Hear from Entrepreneurs 2017 n.p.). Only one of the 23 actually cited money and material success as a motivating factor to keep working.

However it is described, entrepreneurs seem to agree that passion and determination are key factors that carry them through the grind of the day-to-day.

Hear from Entrepreneurs. 2017. “23 Entrepreneurs Explain Their Motivation or if ‘Motivation is Garbage.’” https://hear.ceoblognation.com/2017/07/17/23-entrepreneurs-explain-motivation-motivation-garbage/

Knowledge @ Wharton. 2012. “The Super-motivated Entrepreneur Behind Egypt’s SuperMama.” http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-super-motivated-entrepreneur-behind-egypts-supermama/

Rashid, Brian. 2017. “How This Entrepreneur Sustains High Levels of Energy and Motivation.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianrashid/2017/05/26/how-this-entrepreneur-sustains-high-levels-of-energy-and-motivation/2/#2a8ec5591111

In the article from Hear from Entrepreneurs, one respondent called motivation “garbage”? Would you agree or disagree, and why?
How is staying motivated as an entrepreneur similar to being motivated to pursue a college degree? Do you think the two are related? How?
How would you expect motivation to vary across cultures?[/BOX]

Concept Check

Understand the modern approaches to motivation theory.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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

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

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

Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Principles of Management
Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/14-4-recent-research-on-motivation-theories

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

An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation: using a game to teach equity and expectancy theories

Organization Management Journal

ISSN : 2753-8567

Article publication date: 1 July 2020

Issue publication date: 27 November 2020

This paper aims to provide an experiential exercise for management and leadership educators to use in the course of their teaching duties.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach of this classroom teaching method uses an experiential exercise to teach Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory.

This experiential exercise has proven useful in teaching two major theories of motivation and is often cited as one of the more memorable classes students experience.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is an original experiential exercise for teaching the equity and expectancy theories of motivation.

Work motivation
Equity theory
Expectancy theory

Experiential exercise

Swain, J. , Kumlien, K. and Bond, A. (2020), "An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation: using a game to teach equity and expectancy theories", Organization Management Journal , Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-06-2019-0742

Emerald Publishing Limited

Published in Organization Management Journal . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Theories of work motivation are central to the field of management and are covered in many introductory management, leadership, human resource management and organizational behavior courses ( Benson & Dresdow, 2019 ; Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004 ; Swain, Bogardus, & Lin, 2019 ). Understanding the concept of work motivation helps undergraduate students prepare for leading and managing others. Teaching these concepts in the classroom allows students to experiment and share ideas with others in a lower-stakes environment than if they were in an actual place of work with other employees. But teaching students theories of work motivation is not easy. First, there are dozens of theories ranging from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, to self-determination theory, to goal setting theory, to Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (a.k.a. two-factor theory), to job characteristics theory, just to name a few ( Anderson, 2007 ; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019 ; Latham & Pinder, 2005 ; Locke & Latham, 1990 ). Second, students tend to evaluate the explanatory power of different motivational theories based on how they relate to their work and life experiences ( Anderson, 2007 ). This tendency to view motivation theories through the lens of personal experience poses a challenge for undergraduate level students who have limited work exposure; they often lack the context to make sense of the various motivational theories ( Mills, 2017 ). Therefore, to provide a common experience through which students can understand theories of work motivation, we developed an experiential activity. Specifically, we use an in-class basketball exercise. This experiential approach not only provides a common context for students to reference in applying theories of work motivation, but also incorporates elements of fun and competition, which have been shown to help engage students more fully ( Helms & Haynes, 1990 ; Azriel, Erthal, & Starr, 2005 ).

While there are numerous theories of work motivation ( Latham & Pinder, 2005 ), like others, we have found focusing on too many of these theories during one class overwhelms students and causes them to question academics’ understanding of the topic ( Anderson, 2007 ; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019 ). However, focusing on too few theories also limits students’ education and understanding of why multiple theories of motivation exist. We find that acknowledging the existence of multiple theories is advisable, and we suggest instructors emphasize the complexity of motivation, but that they do not try to force students to learn or apply the details of a large number of theories of motivation in a single class period. Therefore, our exercise focuses on two basic theories of work motivation – Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Adams’ Equity Theory. We chose to focus on these two theories because they are among the most influential theories of work motivation ( Anderson, 2007 ; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019 ; Miner, 2003 ) and among the most frequently included in management and organizational behavior courses and textbooks ( Miner, 2003 ; Miner, 2005 ).

Theoretical foundation

Both expectancy and equity theories of motivation have been identified as important frameworks for teaching and understanding motivation, and both emphasize the cognitive approach to motivation ( Miner, 2003 ; Stecher & Rosse, 2007 ).

Adams’ equity theory centers on the perception of fairness ( Adams, 1963 ). When people feel they have been fairly treated, they are more likely to be motivated. When they feel they have not been fairly treated, their motivation will suffer. These perceptions of equity are derived from an assessment of personal input and outputs – or what people put into a task compared to what they receive as a result ( Adams, 1963 ; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018 ). Inputs can include things like time, effort, loyalty, enthusiasm and personal sacrifice. Outputs can include but are not limited to, thing likes salary, praise, rewards, recognition, job security, etc. But the theory is more complex than simply the assessment of personal inputs weighed against outputs. Adams’ equity theory also incorporates the concept of perceived equity ( Adams, 1963 ; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018 ). People compare their inputs and outputs to others. If they feel that another person is putting in the same level of effort, but getting more outputs as a result, that person’s motivation may suffer ( Kanfer, 1990 ; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018 ; Stecher & Rosse, 2007 ). This theory can be summarized using a visual equation that highlights how perceived equity can impact motivation ( Appendix 1 ). This same visual equation can help students understand how leaders can influence motivation in their subordinates; how leaders can impact equity. For example, if inequity exists, leaders may require subordinates to reduce personal inputs, or they may adjust the outcomes. They might also counsel their subordinates to change their comparison points (e.g. a low-level worker should not compare herself to a senior VP with 12+ years of experience).

Expectancy : Is the individual properly trained and do they possess the necessary resources to effectively do the job?

Instrumentality : Does the individual trust that they’ll receive what they were promised if they do what they were asked?

Valence : Does the individual value the reward they were promised ( Kanfer & Ryan, 2018 )?

In this exercise, we use a mini basketball game in class to teach students about both Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory. Using the game in class ensures students have a common context through which to apply and understand these two theories of work motivation. As noted by Stecher & Rosse (2007) , both theories offer compatible frameworks for understanding work motivation, yet they are most often taught as distinct non-related theories. We find that teaching these two theories using the same experiential exercise helps students understand the complexities of motivation. Specifically, this exercise helps students understand how multiple theories can explain motivation issues for the same situation.

Learning objectives

understand the complexity of motivation and its impact on performance;

explain differences in an individual’s motivation and behavior as a function of common psychological forces experienced by people; and

apply knowledge of work motivation theories to address issues of motivation.

Target audience.

This exercise is designed for undergraduate students in introductory courses in leadership, management, human resource management or organizational behavior – wherever theories of work motivation are covered. This approach has been used for over a decade teaching college juniors and seniors in a leadership course. While the approach has not been used to teach graduate students, there is no reason to believe it would not be an effective means for teaching those enrolled in an MBA program.

Class size.

The exercise has been used in classes ranging from 15 to 36 students. As participation by multiple students positively impacts the class, it is recommended the exercise be used for smaller classes. Time could become a factor in larger classes. Furthermore, space could prove a limiting factor in larger classes as some room is needed to set up the game.

Supplies needed.

mini basketball hoop and mini basketball (a trash can and wadded up paper can work if you do not have access to a small hoop and ball);

means for keeping time (stopwatch, wristwatch or wall clock with a second hand);

painter’s tape or note cards to annotate shot positions on the floor in the classroom;

one bag of miniature candy bars; and

slides of equity and expectancy theory to assist in de-brief ( Appendix 1 ).

This exercise as described can be completed in a single 75-min class session. If less time is available, we recommend instructors teach only one of the theories as outlined in this article (conduct only one of the two rounds of the game), covering the other theory during another class period.

a brief overview of work motivation by the instructor (via short lecture or through soliciting input from students to gauge the level of preparation) (10 min);

the first round of the game (10 min);

de-brief and application of equity theory (10 min);

the second round of the game (10 min);

de-brief and application of expectancy theory (10 min);

small group discussion on the future application of theories (15 min); and

structured de-brief of group discussions (10 min).

Student preparation before class.

It is recommended that instructors assign students readings focused on work motivation in advance of the class. A large number of organizational behavior or management textbooks contain chapters on this topic. At a minimum, the assigned reading should cover equity and expectancy theories.

Instructor preparation and classroom setup.

Instructors should set up the classroom with supplies they obtained before beginning class. A visual example of the classroom setup for Rounds 1 and 2 of the exercise can be found in Appendix 2 . The mini-basketball hoop should be located in front of the classroom where all the students can see it. Depending on the size/shape of the classroom, the shooting positions for Rounds 1 and 2 of the exercise can be placed in any location. The shooting position for Round 1 should be a moderately difficult shot, perhaps two to three steps away from the basket. Mark the position with tape or a notecard.

Round 2 requires three different shooting positions. Each position should be marked with tape or a notecard. The first position is the “easy” shot. It should be very close to the basket (1-2 steps in front of the basket). The purpose of this first position is to create the opportunity for a shot that the average person would have lots of confidence in making (high expectancy). The second position should be further away (six to eight steps away from the basket) and potentially behind a row of desks for some added difficulty. The purpose of this second position is to create a shot of medium level difficulty where students are not completely confident (lower expectancy) that they will be able to make it. The third position should be the hardest shot that you can create while still leaving a very small possibility of the shot being made (lowest expectancy). It is recommended you make the student stand outside of a doorway so that they have to shoot a strange trajectory. If your classroom space is not big enough to support making a shot position that is far away from the basket, you can instead add difficulty by requiring the student to wear a blindfold or to shoot backwards. For the positions needed for Round 2 of the exercise, instructors should test the positions and ensure the three different locations are of varying difficulty and that the third position is an extremely difficult (almost impossible) shot to make.

Running the exercise

Introduction to motivational theories (10 min).

Given the number of motivational theories that exist in the academic world, we find it helpful to acknowledge this initially with students to highlight the overall complexity of the topic. In this introduction, instructors can briefly highlight the variety of motivational theories that exist (e.g. expectancy, equity, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, self-determination theory, goal setting theory, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, job characteristics theory, etc.). This can be done in any number of ways – asking students to list and/or briefly describe the various theories covered in their assigned reading, etc. Teachers should tailor this introduction based on their specific situation (e.g. the content of assigned reading, length of class, etc.). After talking through the variety of theories that exist, it is important to highlight to students that these theories should be viewed more as a conceptual toolbox for them to use in different situations as opposed to viewing all of these theories as a group of non-congruent viewpoints all competing to be the truest ( Anderson, 2007 ).

After a brief review of the assigned reading(s), instructors can tell students that they are going to play a game to apply what they have learned.

Round 1 of the game (10 min)

Ask all of the students to stand up and tell them to stretch out, limber up, and get prepared for a mini-basketball competition. During this session, the instructor will provide students with an exciting and competitive experience to which they can apply the concepts of Adams’ Equity Theory.

Divide students into four even teams. Have students move around and sit with their team as a group. Explain that Team 1 will compete against Team 2 in a basketball shootout. Establish an incentive of your choice – candy often works well. Show this incentive to the students. Now call Team 1 and Team 2 up to the front of the class and instruct them that:

[…] you can take as many shots as you want at the hoop in 60 seconds, but everybody in your team needs to shoot at least once. The team that ends up with the most baskets made will win. Team 1, you will go first.

Use a stopwatch or watch with a second hand to keep time and instruct members of the opposing team to keep score.

Once Team 1 completes their turn, record their score and call Team 2 forward. Before allowing Team 2 to start their turn, move the shooting spot three paces further away from the basket (move the tape or notecard back three paces).

You will likely experience negative feedback from Team 2 after moving the basket. Common responses include, “this isn’t fair.” Pay close attention to the complaints that they use, these are often very useful to bring up during the discussion portion of the exercise. You might respond lightheartedly with “life isn’t fair” or “what, are you scared?” Allow Team 2 to complete their turn, paying close attention to their affect and comments. If done correctly, Team 2 should lose to Team 1. Congratulate Team 1 on their excellent performance and give each member of Team 1 their prize (a small candy bar works well) and have both Teams 1 and 2 return to their seats.

Now call Team 3 forward. Instruct them that will have 60 s to shoot from the same spot that Team 2 shot from. Keep time and have a member from Team 4 count the baskets. When time is up, record the score. Now call Team 4 forward. Have them shoot from the same spot Team 3 did. Start the clock. However, do not stop the team from shooting after 60 s. Let them continue to shoot for an additional 30 s – or longer – until you hear the members of Teams 1, 2 and 3 start questioning how much time Team 4 is getting to shoot. Record the number of shots made. Team 4 should beat Team 3. Congratulate team 4. Do NOT give Team 4 any candy for winning. Have Teams 3 and 4 return to their seats.

Round 1 de-brief and application of equity theory (10 min)

This is where the instructor begins to apply Adams’ equity theory to the scenario. Ask students if anyone is feeling unsatisfied or unmotivated. You should have several hands go up. If not, remind them of the negative comments you heard during the game – calling on students by name if necessary. Now start to inquire as to why people said what they did.

At this point, the instructor should put up the slide with Adams’ equity theory on it ( Appendix 1 ) and ask students to explain what happened using the equation on the slide. The class should point out several areas where “the equation does not balance.” For example, the inputs for Team 1 were less than the input for Team 2. Team 2 had a harder shot and, therefore, had to provide more inputs (work harder). Students should also point out that the outputs were not even. Team 4 beat Team 3 (just as Team 1 beat Team 2), but Team 4 did not receive the same outcome/reward. Less clear is the factor of Team 4 having more time than Team 3. Ask students how this factor impacts motivation using equity theory.

Pass out candy to all members of the class – to reduce feelings of inequity. Keep three pieces of candy for Round 2.

Round 2 of the game (10 min)

Now tell the class that you are going to ask for three volunteers. Inform the class that if they volunteer and are selected, they have a choice to make – they must choose one of three shooting/prize positions.

Shooting Position #1. Tell the students that if they choose shooting position #1, they get to shoot from the closest spot (and show them where it is). Let them know that they can take three practice shots and that for making a basket, they will receive a piece of candy.

Shooting Position #2. Tell students if they choose this option, they get to shoot from the spot of moderate difficulty and show them where it is. Let them know they get one practice shot and that their prize for making the basket is something of medium desirability – perhaps lunch paid for by the instructor at a local moderately priced restaurant of the student’s choice.

Shooting Position #3. Tell students that if they choose this option, they get to shoot from the most difficult spot and show them where it is. Tell them that they do not get any practice shots from this location. Promise an extremely desirable reward (high valence) and also something that the students may question whether you have the power to give it to them (low instrumentality). A great example is offering them the ability to get out of having to do a major course requirement such as a capstone project or thesis paper. You could also offer something like getting to park in the Dean’s parking spot for the rest of the semester. The creativity behind choosing this third reward is that you want to find the balance of a reward that is extremely high in desirability, but also something that in hindsight students should realize was probably outside of your ability to deliver on that reward (low instrumentality). By creating a reward that is somewhat unrealistic for shooting position #3, the instructor will allow for a follow-on discussion about the power of instrumentality in Vroom’s expectancy theory. If a student questions whether or not they will receive the reward by meeting the performance outcome (making the shot), then their instrumentality will be lower which may alter the position they select to shoot from.

Now that all three shooting positions have been described, pick three volunteers at random and have them come to the front of the room. Ask the first student what option she would like to choose and have her take the shot. Repeat for the second and third students (students can all shoot from the same spot if they desire). After the final volunteer chooses the shooting position and takes the shot, have students return to their seats and prepare for the de-brief.

Round 2 de-brief and application of expectancy theory (10 min).

After the volunteers have returned to their seats, the instructor can display the Vroom’s expectancy theory slide ( Appendix 1 ) to begin shaping the class conversation in terms of Vroom’s expectancy theory.

Individual behavior = the physical act of shooting the basketball;

Performance outcome = making the basketball in the hoop; and

Reward outcome = the prize received based on making the shot from the shooting position the student chose.

Next, ask the students to break down each of the three options in terms of expectancy, instrumentality and valence . The following should come out in the discussion:

Expectancy – Shooting position #1 has the highest expectancy of all three positions. Self-efficacy is increased through multiple practice shots and the close distance makes the shot seem achievable.

Instrumentality – Shooting position #1 should have a high level of instrumentality. Students know you have the candy bar and that you delivered on what you promised during round 1. Therefore, it is likely they trust and believe they will receive the reward candy bar for achieving the performance outcome of making the shot.

Valence – Shooting position #1 likely has the lowest valence of all three positions in terms of overall value. However, valence could run from low to high depending on individual preference. The candy bar may have lower valence if students do not like the particular candy bar.

Expectancy – Lower than shooting position #1 because the shot is more difficult, and the student only gets one practice shot. However, the expectancy of shooting position #2 is still greater than shooting position #3 because the shot is easier and the student still receives a practice shot which raises the student’s confidence in their ability to achieve the performance outcome of making the shot.

Instrumentality – Lower than shooting position #1, but higher than shooting position #3. There might be some trust issues related to whether the students will receive the lunch. As the student does not immediately get the reward of the free lunch by achieving the performance outcome of making the shot, the instrumentality may be low. The instrumentality should still be higher than shooting position #3 because the student should have more trust that the instructor will buy them lunch as compared to not having to write the final paper for the class.

Valence – Should be higher than position 1 since lunch is more expensive than just a candy bar. However, individual preferences again may vary depending on if the students have free time in their schedule or if they would even like to have lunch with their professor.

Expectancy – The lowest of all three positions as there is no practice shot and the difficulty of the shot is so high that students do not really believe that they will be able to make the shot.

Instrumentality – Should be the lowest of all three positions as the reward may seem so great that some students will doubt if the instructor will follow through on giving the reward, or if they even have the power to give out the reward. But this may not be rated by students as low initially.

Valence – The highest of all three positions. The reward of not having to write a final paper, or some other exclusive reward (parking in the Dean’s parking spot) should be viewed as extremely appealing to most students given the high value they place on their time in a busy college schedule.

After going through each of the shooting positions, have the non-participating students in the classroom evaluate the multiplicative factors for each shooting position and ask them if it makes sense why each student chose to shoot from where they did.

Small group discussion on the future application of theories (15 min)

After students have had a chance to run through both games as well as the de-brief for each exercise, it is now time to turn the discussion toward an application of both theories to future leadership situations. Break students back out into the teams they were on for the Adams’ equity theory portion of the class. Instruct the groups they will have 15 min to talk amongst themselves to brainstorm examples of personal experiences or potential future scenarios where they can apply Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory. Examples that often come up range from peers on group projects receiving the same reward/recognition even though they contributed less, gender discrepancies in pay or promotion, poor incentive systems, etc.

Structured de-brief of group discussion (10 min)

Spend the last 10 min of this class asking each group of the teams to share an example they discussed within their small group. Ensure that you press the students to use the correct terminology when talking about their examples through the lens of either Adams’ equity theory or Vroom’s expectancy theory and ask them how they might positively impact motivation in the scenario they discussed.

Potential challenges.

Challenge : The instructor does not properly manage time for a thorough debrief of each exercise

09:30-09:40. A brief overview of work motivation theories;

09:40-09:50. The first round of the game (Adams’ equity theory);

09:50-10:00. De-brief round one exercise and apply Adams’ equity theory;

10:00-10:10. The second round of the game (Vroom’s expectancy theory);

10:10-10:20. De-brief round two exercise and apply Vroom-s expectancy theory;

10:20-10:35. Small group discussion on the future application of theories; and

10:35-10:45. Structured de-brief of group discussions.

Challenge: A student manages to make the impossible shot

Solution: In the event that a student does make the nearly impossible shot from shooting position #3 (this did happen in one instance and it turned into a viral Instagram video with over 20,000 views) then the instructor needs to be prepared to not follow through on the reward. Instead, the instructor should discuss the concept of instrumentality and how the trust between a leader and their direct reports is essential to ensuring positive motivation in the workplace. This is why it is important that the reward for shooting position #3 is somewhat unbelievable in the first place because it will allow for a great discussion on instrumentality and the belief that achieving a performance outcome will lead to a given reward. The instructor can begin by polling the students to see how many of them completely believed that the reward for shooting position #3 was realistic and attainable. Through this discussion, the instructor can highlight what happens to motivation when managers create extremely difficult goals (low expectancy) with extremely valuable rewards (high valence) to try and motivate their workers. This also provides a strong example to the students of what happens to trust when a leader fails to follow through on a promised reward and how that will impact instrumentality and thus motivation in the future.

Challenge: Students may not have real-life examples to discuss in their groups.

Solution. If group discussion is lagging, the teacher can suggest situations that students may have experienced or direct them to use the internet to find examples and to discuss those instances.

This experiential exercise has proven useful over the past 10 years in providing an introductory look at the complexity of workplace theories of motivation. In semester-end student feedback, this class has been mentioned numerous times as one of the most impactful lessons of the course. Multiple students have commented on the effectiveness of the hands-on exercise in creating a memorable point of reference that makes it easier to retain class learning concepts. In fact, the most recent end of course feedback over one-third of students cited this lesson as the most memorable of the 30-lesson course. Additionally, the in-class exercise provides a common context for students with varying experiences to engage with and allows for the introduction and application of two of the major theories of motivation. Furthermore, the fun, competitive format generates interest and excitement. Note, we have also used miniature golf instead of basketball to teach each theory – having students putt with different equipment, from different distances, and for different prizes. For a brief overview on the setup using mini-golf, please see Appendix 3 . We encourage faculty to have fun with the exercise – it is not just for the students!

Adams’ equity theory

Vroom’s expectancy theory

Setup for Round #1 – Adams’ equity theory

Setup for Round #2 – Vroom’s expectancy theory

Setup for Vroom’s expectancy theory using mini-golf

Appendix 1. Sample slides for use in de-briefing

Appendix 2. sample classroom setups for rounds 1 and 2, appendix 3. instructions for use of mini-golf instead of basketball.

If the classroom does not allow for the setup of the three different shooting positions for the basketball exercise, then it is easy to replace the basketball exercise with a mini-golf option. Below is a brief highlight of the differences in classroom setup for the golf exercise.

putter, golf ball and plastic solo cup;

painter’s tape or note cards to annotate shot positions on the floor in the classroom; and

bag of miniature candy bars.

Round 1 Exercise (Adams’ equity theory)

There are no major changes needed for this round. Simply follow the same instructions for Round 1 of the basketball exercise, except instead of basketball shots replace that with made putts into the solo cup. This will still allow for the same comparison and perceived inequities amongst the four teams that will create a rich discussion on Adams’ equity theory.

Round 2 Exercise (Vroom’s expectancy theory)

Again, there are no major changes needed for this round, other than just replacing the concept of a made basketball shot with a made putt. Below is an example of the three putting positions and how you can still create a similar scenario to the basketball exercise in terms of expectancy , instrumentality and valence for each putting position.

Putting Position #1: Create a short two-foot putt that is fairly easy to make. Allow the student to have three practice putts. This creates an option with high expectancy (an easy putt with practice shots), high instrumentality (the student believes that if they make the putt, they will receive the candy) and low valence (candy is not as valuable as lunch or getting out of writing a final paper).

Putting Position #2: Create a six-foot putt that is not straight on but instead is at a slight angle to the cup so that it is more difficult to make. Allow the student to have only one practice putt. This creates an option with a medium level of expectancy (a slightly more difficult putt), a medium level of instrumentality (the student has to trust that you will actually buy them lunch at some point in the future) and a medium level of valence (the lunch is greater than the candy bar, but most likely not as valuable as not writing the final paper).

Putting Position #3: Create the longest most difficult putt that your classroom will allow. Additionally, tell the students they will receive no practice putts and they will have to putt with the handle end of the putter. This creates an option with a very low level of expectancy (students will have a very low level of belief that they can make the putt given both the distance and the fact that they have to putt with the handle), a low level of instrumentality (again the reward should be so valuable that some students will doubt the reality of actually receiving the reward) and a very high level of valence (the reward should be extremely desirable).

Adams , J. S. ( 1963 ), Toward an understanding of inequity . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67 ( 5 ), 422 – 436 . doi: 10.1037/h0040968 .

Anderson , M. H. ( 2007 ). Why are there so many theories? A classroom exercise to help students appreciate the need for multiple theories of a management domain . Journal of Management Education , 31 ( 6 ), 757 – 776 . doi: 10.1177/1052562906297705 .

Azriel , J. A. , Erthal , M. J. , & Starr , E. ( 2005 ). Answers, questions, and deceptions: what is the role of games in business education? Journal of Education for Business , 81 ( 1 ), 9 – 13 . doi: 10.3200/JOEB.81.1.9-14 .

Benson , J. , & Dresdow , S. ( 2019 ). Delight and frustration: using personal messages to understand motivation . Management Teaching Review , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119851249 doi: 10.1177/2379298119851249 .

Helms , M. , & Haynes , P. J. ( 1990 ). Using a “contest” to foster class participation and motivation . Journal of Management Education , 14 ( 2 ), 117 – 119 . doi: 10.1177/105256298901400212 .

Holbrook , R. L. Jr. , & Chappell , D. ( 2019 ). Sweet rewards: an exercise to demonstrate process theories of motivation . Management Teaching Review , 4 ( 1 ), 49 – 62 . doi: 10.1177/2379298118806632 .

Kanfer , R. ( 1990 ). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology . In Dunnell , M.D. and Hough , L.M. (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology , 1 , Consulting Psychologists Press , 75 – 170 .

Kanfer , R. , & Cornwell , J. F. ( 2018 ). Work motivation I: definitions, diagnosis, and content theories . In Smith , S. , Cornwell , B. , Britt , B. and Eslinger , E. (Eds), West point leadership , Rowan Technology Solutions .

Kanfer , R. , & Ryan , D. M. ( 2018 ). Work motivation II: situational and process theories . In Smith , S. , Cornwell , B. , Britt , B. , & Eslinger , E. (Eds), West point leadership , Rowan Technology Solutions .

Locke , E. A. , & Latham , G. P. ( 1990 ). Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end of the tunnel . Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), 240 – 246 . doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x .

Latham , G. P. , & Pinder , C. C. ( 2005 ). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century . Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , 485 – 516 . doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105 .

Mills , M. J. ( 2017 ). Incentivizing around the globe: educating for the challenge of developing culturally considerate work motivation strategies . Management Teaching Review , 2 ( 3 ), 193 – 201 . doi: 10.1177/2379298117709454 .

Miner , J. B. ( 2003 ), The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: a quantitative review . Academy of Management Learning and Education , 2 , 250 – 268 . doi: 10.5465/amle.2003.10932132 .

Miner , J. B. ( 2005 ). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership , M.E. Sharpe .

Stecher , M. D. , & Rosse , J. G. ( 2007 ), Understanding reactions to workplace injustice through process theories of motivation: a teaching module and simulation . Journal of Management Education , 31 ( 6 ), 777 – 796 . doi: 10.1177/1052562906293504 .

Steers , R. M. , Mowday , R. T. , & Shapiro , D. L. ( 2004 ). The future of work motivation theory . The Academy of Management Review , 29 ( 6 ), 379 – 387 . doi: 10.2307/20159049 .

Swain , J. E. , Bogardus , J. A. and Lin , E. ( 2019 ). Come on down: using a trivia game to teach the concept of organizational justice . Management Teaching Review , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119892588

Van Eerde , W. , & Thierry , H. ( 1996 ). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 (5) , 575 . doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575 .

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

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

CITE Journal

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education

Current Practice
Mathematics Education
English/Language Arts Education
Science Education
Social Studies Education
Objects to Think With
Submit Commentary

Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2014). Exploring motivation in an online context: A case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 14 (1). https://citejournal.org/volume-14/issue-1-14/general/exploring-motivation-in-an-online-context-a-case-study

Exploring Motivation in an Online Context: A Case Study

With the increasing ubiquity of new technologies, many claims are being made about their potential to transform tertiary education. In order for this transformation to be realized, however, a range of issues needs to be addressed. Research evidence suggests that motivation is an important consideration for online learners. This paper reports on one aspect of a case study situated within a larger study that investigates the nature of motivation to learn of preservice teachers in an online environment. Using self-determination theory as an analytical framework, the focus here is on the underlying concepts of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The ways in which certain social and contextual factors can foster perceptions of these needs being met are explored. These factors are known to have a supportive effect on learner motivation. Most prominent among these were the relevance of the learning activity, the provision of clear guidelines, and the ongoing support and feedback from the lecturer that was responsive to learners’ needs. Supportive, caring relationships were also important.

The rapidly changing nature of digital information and communications technology is having a dramatic impact on how, where, and when individuals choose to learn (Harasim, 2012). Educational institutions are no less affected (Haythornthwaite & Andrews, 2011), including preservice teacher education, which has seen a dramatic increase in the availability of technology-enabled education programs over the last decade (Robinson & Latchem, 2003).

In a time of such rapid change, educators must be cognizant of factors that contribute to learning success in digitally mediated or augmented environments. Motivation is one such factor (Bekele, 2010). Perceptions regarding the motivation of online learners have developed out of earlier distance education models (Moore, 1993) and adult learning theories (Knowles, 1984) that consider such learners as being independent and self-efficacious and having high motivation to learn (McCombs & Vakili, 2005).

As the student population becomes increasingly diverse, the boundaries between formal, nonformal, and informal learning environments blur and new forms of online learning, such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) experience low completion rates (Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013), these underlying assumptions about distance education are being questioned (Haythornthwaite & Andrews, 2011). A growing body of research highlights motivation as an issue requiring further investigation in online contexts (Hartnett, St. George, & Dron, 2011; Keller, 2008; Kim & Frick, 2011).

“To be motivated means to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 54; italics in original). Motivation involves goals that provide the impetus for purposeful action with an intended direction. Whether physical or mental, activity is an essential part of motivation. Inherent in this definition is the notion that motivation is a process rather than an end result. Therefore, it must be inferred from actions, such as choice of tasks, persistence, effort, and achievement, or from what individuals say about themselves (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014).

Understanding the complexity of motivation is important, because it has practical implications for online instructors and instructional designers as well as learners. For example, motivation to learn has been shown to play an important role in determining whether a learner persists in a course, the level of engagement shown, the quality of work produced, and the level of achievement attained (Schunk et al., 2014).

Contemporary views of motivation emphasize the situated, interactive relationship between the learner and the learning environment (Turner & Patrick, 2008). Just as motivation is a key factor in learning and achievement in face-to-face educational settings (Brophy, 2010), so it is in online learning environments (Kim & Frick, 2011). Nevertheless, several researchers have highlighted the limited quantity and scope of research in online contexts (Bekele, 2010; Kim & Frick, 2011).

Furthermore, while contemporary theories of motivation acknowledge that aspects of motivation are dynamic and responsive to situations (Turner & Patrick, 2008), some studies have adopted such theories without acknowledgement of the bidirectional nature of motivation. Conceptual frameworks used to investigate motivation in online environments include Keller’s (2010) ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction ) model (Carpenter, 2011; Kim & Keller, 2008), self-efficacy (Moos & Azevedo, 2009), goal orientation (Dawson, Macfadyen, & Lockyer, 2009), interest (Moos & Azevedo, 2008), and intrinsic–extrinsic motivation (Shroff & Vogel, 2009), as well as various combinations of these constructs (e.g., Lin, Lin, & Laffey, 2008; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007).

Self-Determination Theory of Motivation

Constructs commonly used when investigating motivation are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When people are intrinsically motivated to engage in an activity, they do so for the interest or enjoyment inherent in the activity. In contrast, extrinsic motivation involves reasons separate from the activity (e.g., passing a course, the approval of others, the relevance or perceived worthwhileness of the learning).

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is an influential theory that explicates intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and one that has been applied in education, generally (Deci & Ryan, 2008), and preservice teacher education, more specifically (Evelein, Korthagen, & Brekelmans, 2008). This theory has been applied in both face-to-face (Brophy, 2010) and online contexts (Rienties et al., 2012).

SDT is a contemporary theory of situated motivation that acknowledges the complex and dynamic interplay of social and contextual factors underlying and influencing motivation to learn and is built on a fundamental premise relating to learner autonomy. SDT argues that all humans have an intrinsic need to be self-determining or autonomous, as well as to feel competent and to experience a sense of relatedness to others. The satisfaction of these basic needs promotes autonomous motivation and effective performance (Deci & Ryan, 2012).

Building on the work of Deci and Ryan (1985), Connell (1990) defined autonomy as “the experience of choice in the initiation, maintenance and regulation of activity and the experience of connectedness between one’s actions and personal goals and values” (pp. 62-63). Competence is defined as “the need to experience oneself as capable of producing desired outcomes and avoiding negative outcomes” (Connell & Wellborn, 1991, p. 51). Relatedness “encompasses the need to feel securely connected to the social surround and the need to experience oneself as worthy and capable of…respect” (pp. 51-52).

Within an SDT framework, Ryan and Deci’s (2000) taxonomy of human motivation details a continuum of types of motivation “in terms of the extent to which the motivation for one’s behaviour emanates from one’s self” (p. 61). Importantly, it identifies several types of extrinsic motivation, which vary in terms of autonomy or self-determination, from the classic externally controlled motivation through increasingly more autonomous, volitional, and valued types of extrinsic motivation, even though the motivational drivers still involve outcomes separate from the activity itself.

The degree to which an individual expresses self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation, or alternatively, intrinsic motivation (this being the most self-determined type of motivation), depends on whether their innate needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met by factors within the learning environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When autonomous, students attribute their actions to an internal perceived locus of causality and experience a sense of freedom and choice over their actions (Reeve, Ryan, Deci, & Jang, 2008).

Support for competence is also necessary to facilitate motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991), and external events convey information about a person’s competence or skill level. SDT also hypothesizes that autonomous motivation is more likely to flourish in situations where learners experience a secure sense of belonging (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The three broad needs are interrelated and feed one another, positively or negatively.

Research in face-to-face contexts has shown that autonomy support within the learning context leads to more self-determined motivation among learners (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Examples include providing rationales for tasks, the use of noncontrolling language, and the provision of relevant and meaningful instructional activities that align with students’ personal interests. Choice has also been shown to be supportive of learners’ autonomy needs (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). However, the perception of choice, or lack of it, rather than the actual choice is critical in terms of self-determination (Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003).

Support for the competence needs of learners is also necessary to facilitate motivation (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). The provision of structure (Connell & Wellborn, 1991) has been shown to be important in supporting competence needs and facilitating self-determined types of motivation. Structure may include such things as explicit, detailed information that clarifies expectations without seeking to control behavior; provision of informational feedback; and responsiveness to student questions, comments, and suggestions (Reeve, 2009). In addition to structure supporting learner competence, learning activities designed to be optimally challenging (that is, where the challenge of the task is high and reasonably well-matched to learners’ skill levels; Csikszentmihalyi, 1985) encourage feelings of capability and high quality (i.e., more self-determined) motivation.

Support for relatedness needs additionally impacts motivation to learn. The more individuals’ autonomy and competence needs are met within a supportive interpersonal relationship, the more connected and trusting they feel toward that person (Ryan, La Guardia, Solky-Butzel, Chirkov, & Kim, 2005). Teacher involvement in terms of the amount of time invested, care taken, and attention given has been shown to be a powerful motivator (Brophy, 2010). Inclusion, which encompasses respect and connectedness, has also been identified as one of the basic conditions necessary for encouraging and supporting motivation across diverse groups of learners (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000). Conversely, difficulties in relationships with teachers and other learners have been associated with a corresponding undermining of autonomy needs (Martens & Kirschner, 2004).

Several online studies have utilized self-determination theory as a theoretical basis ( Hartnett et al., 2011; Rienties et al., 2012; Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). Comparative studies are common (Shroff & Vogel, 2009; Wighting, Liu, & Rovai, 2008), and findings have indicated that online students were more intrinsically motivated than were their on-campus counterparts.

Other research has suggested that learners’ perceptions of autonomy were predictive of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Huang & Liaw, 2007). Intrinsic motivation was associated with greater exploration of the learning environment (Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004), and intrinsic goal orientation was significantly positively correlated with online success (Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Together, these studies suggest that learners’ perceptions of autonomy are important in fostering online students’ intrinsic motivation.

These studies have also demonstrated that feedback, the instructor’s role in online discussions, choice, competence, challenge, interest, relevance, and collaboration all influenced student intrinsic motivation to learn in the various online learning contexts. Few studies (Hartnett et al. 2011; Xie et al., 2006), however, draw on multiple perspectives (i.e., of both instructors and students) or examine more self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation (Hartnett, 2010). The study by (Hartnett et al., 2011) is distinctive in highlighting the complex, multifaceted, situation-dependent nature of motivation in online contexts.

Furthermore, with the exception of research by Hartnett et al., none of the studies clarified which of the different psychological needs of SDT were supported by the identified contextual factors. Arguably, for example, clearly stated guidelines and well-designed discussion topics guide, clarify, and facilitate the learning process, thereby supporting a learner’s need to feel effective and competent. In other words, the support for learners’ competence needs rather than their autonomy needs fostered the observed intrinsic motivation.

The current research sought to go beyond existing research by using the underlying concepts of SDT (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) as critical lenses to untangle the multiple influences on motivation that combine in complex ways in an online context. Thus, we aimed to shed light on the ways in which the different psychological needs of learners were affected by a range of social and contextual influences.

This paper utilizes the dataset of a larger study (Hartnett, 2010) that explored the motivation of preservice teachers situated within real-life online learning contexts. While the main study explored and identified a broad range of influences that either supported or undermined learners’ motivation in two online learning contexts, results presented and discussed here focus on only those that fostered perceptions of motivation among learners in one context.

Our purpose is to discuss in depth the complex interplay of factors that emerged as supporting motivation to learn. Factors that can unintentionally undermine motivation in online contexts are explored elsewhere (Hartnett, 2010). The question guiding the investigation was, In what ways do social and contextual factors relate to preservice teachers’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs in an online learning environment?

This study was exploratory in nature, and we sought to identify, explore, and understand preservice teachers’ learning experiences as they related to their motivation to learn in a specific online context. Therefore, the methodology adopted was case study, because such an approach can be of value where the research aims to investigate a complex phenomenon embedded in the real world, where the scope is difficult to define and can only be understood within context (Yin, 2009).

Purposive sampling (Patton, 2002) was adopted where predetermined criteria of importance were used to ensure relevance to the research question. In particular, (a) the course was required to be predominantly online with only limited resources provided by alternative methods such as print-based materials; and (b) course expectations required students to participate within the online learning community as an integral part of coursework.

Ethical approval to undertake the study was gained prior to commencement. Data collection procedures comprised online questionnaires and face-to-face, semistructured interviews (undertaken after the completion and marking of relevant coursework); and online asynchronous discussion transcripts (generated during the course but collected after all coursework was completed, graded, and results submitted).

The questionnaire collected demographic information; self-report measures of motivation using the situational motivational scale (SIMS) developed by Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard (2000) that operationalizes the self-determination continuum; and open-ended questions developed to gain insight into possible relationships between social and contextual influences and learners’ motivation. The SIMS scale measures situational intrinsic motivation, extrinsic forms of motivation (identified regulation, external regulation) and amotivation using 16 seven-point Likert scales with four questions for each motivation subscale (see Guay et al., 2000, p. 210 for the complete questionnaire). The four subscales’ internal consistency values (Cronbach’s a) ranged from .77 to .95. Interviews were undertaken to further explore participants’ experiences, as well as how the context influenced their thinking, feeling, behavior, and motivation in an online environment.

Both open-ended questionnaire responses and interview questions were developed with reference to current motivation literature. Collecting online asynchronous discussion transcripts enabled perceptions of both lecturer and student participants, evident from interview and questionnaire data, to be confirmed or anomalies highlighted.

Context and Participants

The course that provided the context for the case study presented here was situated within the larger context of a preservice teacher education program within a New Zealand tertiary institution. Students in this program were preparing to teach in New Zealand primary (i.e., elementary) schools.

The case itself was positioned within an introductory social studies curriculum course that formed a compulsory component of the program. Students usually took this course in the second year of their degree, which was considered Internet-based rather than fully online, because students received some print material (study guide) at the beginning of the semester.

Assessment for this course comprised three assignments. The individual microteaching assignment required students to plan and teach two consecutive lessons to a group of four to six students in a school of their choice and formed the boundary for the case. The first lesson had to include a diagnostic activity to identify the children’s current understanding and prior experiences of the social studies concept the student wanted to develop. Based on the results of the diagnostic activity, the second lesson then developed the children’s conceptual understandings in the chosen area, followed by a formative assessment task to provide evidence of the children’s learning.

Next, students were required to annotate children’s work samples, collected during these lessons, highlighting effective learning in social studies. Finally, students were required to reflect on how well they developed children’s understanding of key aspects of learning with reference to the literature. Students completed this assignment over a 4-week period, which was worth 40% of the final grade and was assessed on all aspects of the assignment.

During this time, students were also required to engage with peers in the wider class and contribute to weekly online activities designed to support this process. The lecturer posted details in online weekly messages that were designed primarily to scaffold the learning process (e.g., development of diagnostic activity) as well as provided details of what students were required to do. The online learning platform used for online communication and most content delivery was the WebCT Learning Management System. The course had been delivered online by this lecturer for several years prior to this research investigation and was well established. The lecturer was responsible for all online teaching and assessment throughout the semester. She considered herself an experienced online teacher in the context of this course. In addition, she was an experienced lecturer in the field of social studies, having taught in the undergraduate teacher education program for a number of years prior to this investigation.

Collectively, 9 student participants took part in the study (out of a possible 47 taking the course) and 1 lecturer. Student participants were located throughout New Zealand and undertook their courses at a distance from the main campus. Two of these students were located at a small satellite campus of the institution. The student participant group comprised 1 male and 8 females, with participants’ ages ranging from 18 to 55 and 78% in the over-24 age group.

Data Analysis

Both inductive and deductive analysis occurred within this research investigation. SDT (in particular, psychological needs and the continuum of motivation types) provided sensitizing concepts with which to explore the qualitative data (Blumer, 2006). An inductive approach geared to allowing additional patterns, themes, and categories to emerge from the data occurred concurrently (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

This approach also allowed for the possibility of disconfirming influences to emerge, including themes indicating that motivation was undermined rather than supported and themes that did not fit within the SDT framework. The qualitative analysis software package NVivo was used to facilitate and manage the complex, iterative process of analyzing the qualitative data.

This process involved reading and rereading all qualitative data to get a sense of the breadth of responses and the possible range of codes needed to identify themes. Each theme was assigned a code, and each coded piece of text was placed at a node named in such a way that it described the essence of the idea identified. In this way, chunks of text with similar ideas were able to be stored together. These pieces of text varied in length and were coded at all relevant nodes depending on whether single or multiple themes were identified. One researcher coded all of the qualitative dataset.

SDT is used here as an organizing framework to present the findings. Within each organizing concept, key social and contextual factors are identified and explored to determine how they facilitated perceptions of autonomy, competence, and a sense of relatedness. No one factor enabled all the psychological needs of learners to be met. Rather, learners’ perceptions of the extent to which this occurred were formed from multiple influences that combined in complex ways. SIMS scale questionnaire data that identified the different types of motivation participants experienced during the microteaching activity are reported elsewhere (Hartnett et al., 2011).

Autonomy Supportive Themes

Overall, participants perceived themselves as autonomous while engaged in the microteaching assignment and associated online activities, as indicated by the following comments:

“It was really valuable because so much of what we do in other courses is prescribed that, you know, you need to have the experience of making your own choices and making your own mistakes or your own successes.” (Student1, Interview)
“I liked the freedom, yeah the freedom of that.…We could choose our own strand, our own levels, our own school” (Student2, Interview).

Several significant themes and subthemes emerged as facilitating learners’ perceptions of autonomy (see Table 1).

Table 1 Influences That Supported Perceptions of Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness



Task relevance & meaning (professional or personal)
Interest (situational or personal)
Actively use knowledge in practice
Autonomy supportive lecturer
Provision of choice

Clear guidelines and expectations
Ongoing guidance and supportive feedback
Responsiveness of the lecturer
Judgments of high self-efficacy
Helpful and supportive peers
Perceptions of useful course resources
Optimal challenge

Relationship with lecturer
Relationships with peers

The relevance and meaning of the activities emerged as the most salient theme that supported the autonomy of participants. Within this major theme, two key subthemes emerged: professional relevance and personal relevance. Example comments included, “This assignment was exactly what the course is about and indeed what we are studying to be is all about – teaching” (Student2, questionnaire), and “It related to…things that you could really use in the class; you could just imagine how useful it is and how well it works” (Student6, interview).

The second subtheme was associated with the relevance of the assignment in terms of the personal relevance and meaning the activity engendered for participants. Being able to make connections from the course content to their everyday lives, in terms of existing interests and prior experiences, enhanced the meaningfulness for participants, as the following comment indicates:

It actually was really quite interesting….The school had just had a jubilee and I thought, “Well, I’ll focus it around that and doing other celebrations.” And it was just before ANZAC Day [national day of remembrance in Australia and New Zealand] and my husband has got medals, so I could take those. (Student3, interview).

The autonomy needs of learners were further supported through the promotion of interest in two distinct ways. Situational interest (i.e., features of the learning activity itself that participants found interesting) was promoted in the form of online discussions that were considered “quite hot topics,” as noted by Student1: “I got the impression that people were participating quite regularly because it’s just interesting” (interview). Other students noted the lecturer’s teaching approach: “I mean, you could tell that she loves social studies….She’s got lots to share with you. She’s not withholding anything. She just wants social studies out there” (Student2, interview).

Moreover, activities that provided opportunities to pursue personal interests were key mechanisms that supported autonomy, as revealed by the following example:

I decided to take it into the fact or opinion kind of evaluation or, you know, inquiry aspect of that, that intrigues me. I mean anything to do with getting kids to think about why they are thinking fascinates me. (Student7, interview)

Being able to use knowledge actively in practice was also seen as important and valuable and was the next most prominent theme highlighted by learners. The following remark is indicative of what this meant to learners:

I think it was probably the best thing that you could do….You know, you learn all about social studies…and then you are faced with the problem, well, how am I going to teach that? You know, it’s like, “Oh wow okay, I’ve just read all about it, so now I have to actually work out for myself how that’s going to go.” (Student2, interview)

Another theme to emerge was the autonomy supportive approach adopted by the lecturer, for whom sharing of power was a central consideration: “For me, it’s a sharing of power, acknowledging I do have power. I’m marking their work, that gives me power, but I’m acknowledging it and…I’m trying to reach out and build them up” (Lecturer, Interview).

In addition to sharing power, the lecturer supported learners’ autonomy by using a communication style that conveyed flexibility and personal responsibility to the learner. The following message was received by several participants in relation to their lack of discussion about their ideas for the upcoming microteaching activity. While she reiterated her expectations, she worded it in a way that emphasized her willingness to support them through the planning and development of their microteaching lessons:

Just come in to support your thinking about your microteaching….All other groups have been talking on line….I know you might meet but you also need to participate here so I can see/hear and add to your thoughts. Hope there’s something up by Monday. (Lecturer, online discussion)

Two thirds of participants, thus, developed perceptions of autonomy, as illustrated by the following comments:

“I loved how she brought it across, because she wasn’t serious, and this is how it is, and this is how it’s going to be, and she gave us the freedom to explore” (Student3, interview).
“Isn’t it lovely to feel worthwhile & capable & valued” (Student9, online transcript).

Participants also perceived that many choices were available to them. Having choice was perceived as freeing and having no limits, as the following remarks attest:

“Choice is very important to me in a motivational sense” (Student7, questionnaire).
“Choice in the microteaching subject gave me practice at identifying authentic and engaging learning contexts for the children (critical to social studies) so it was a good learning experience for me” (Student1, questionnaire).

Not all participants experienced this sense of choice. Several participants talked of having limited choices. Those who expressed a lack of choice focused on the compulsory nature of the assignment (e.g., “I felt there was not much choice in this assignment. I needed to do it for this course,” Student5, questionnaire). Other factors undermining perceptions of autonomy for several participants included time constraints (i.e., factors outside the immediate learning context, such as other study commitments, impacting on the time available) and technology constraints (i.e., perceived limitations of the text-based asynchronous medium).

Competence Supportive Themes

All participants reported a sense of competence within the microteaching context. The following comment, which was indicative of comments made by all participants, provides a clear example of their sentiments:

When I first started the course, I thought social studies, and I didn’t really have a clear picture of what teaching social studies would actually mean. What would I actually be teaching? But I do now.…I’m sure I’ve got a lot more to learn but it’s a lot clearer and a lot more confident. (Student6, Interview)

Seven main themes emerged as facilitating learners’ perceptions of competence while engaged in the microteaching assignment and associated scaffolding activities (see Table 1).

Support for learners’ competence needs was principally achieved through the provision of clear guidelines and expectations. One student described the activities as follows:

The overall structure was clearly defined and followed a logical progression. The fact that little time [was] needed to be spent on interpreting the requirements (as, sadly, can so often be the case with academic courses) made for a more efficient and effective approach to planning. (Student7, questionnaire).

Another student said that students could “simply ‘get on with it,’ without needing to seek clarification” (Student1, questionnaire).

Students perceived high-quality, ongoing guidance and supportive feedback from the lecturer. Example comments included the following:

“We have all got lots of support and positive feedback which encourages us to keep trying; it also keeps our motivation up” (Student9, questionnaire).
“We depend so much on what the lecturer would say about things we don’t understand and…[when] the lecturer is responding to it or explain[s] a bit more it will be very, very good.” (Student8, interview).

The timeliness and responsiveness of that support was also found to be crucial in fostering perceptions of growing competence among learners. Students perceived their lecturer as “very helpful; actually she is one of the most helpful I’ve encountered…always giving us notes and tips and always there and when you ask her something she replies” (Student8, interview). Another student said, “She has always made herself available, and there has always been lots of positive interaction and I think that that has made a big difference” (Student9, interview).

Learning activities that encouraged judgments of high self-efficacy by building on learners’ prior knowledge and experience, as well as allowing them to implement planned lessons successfully in an authentic context encouraged learners’ sense of competence to continue to grow throughout the activity. The following comments reflect those made by participants:

“Lessons that I had taught in the past, I just sort of used the ideas from that and the planning and things like that” (Student5, interview).
“Actually going into a school and doing those two microsessions has given me a lot more confidence and just more knowledge of how to use the curriculum” (Student6, interview).

Not all participants experienced high levels of efficacy. Two students questioned their ability to complete the assignment successfully because of the requirement to learn within an online environment. These students were located at the satellite campus of the institution where the majority of their courses (excluding this one) were offered in a traditional face-to-face format. These differing circumstances meant they had less prior experience with online learning than other participants in the group. Their statements included the following: “[It’s] a big one for me especially with the online learning because I…don’t feel that I was capable enough to do it” (Student4, interview).

Being able to ask questions and make comments or suggestions, either within the class forum or to specific peers, was seen as a further source of support and encouragement. The participant group as a whole talked about the academic support they provided and received from each other; for example, “If you had a problem, you just go to someone else and say, ‘Hey, look, can you clarify that? You seem to have a really clear understanding’….That help is always there” (Student3, interview).

Another theme emerging from the data in support of students’ competence needs was the perceived usefulness and completeness of the course resources. Participants expressed confidence about their capabilities to complete the assignment successfully, as in the following statement:

The study guide, lectures, and readings were very useful—providing a lot of information about planning for social studies, and strategies for inquiry, values exploration, and social decision making in the classroom. I did not require any additional resources (other than online exemplars)—the study guide, lecture notes etc. for this course were very complete. (Student1, questionnaire)

Finally, activities that were optimally challenging (i.e., where skill level and challenge are high and reasonably well-matched) supported perceptions of competence, as the following comment indicates: “I felt this assignment was fantastic for bringing together all of my skills and what I have learnt” (Student2, questionnaire).

Relatedness Supportive Themes

Overwhelmingly, participants reported strong connections to others within the learning environment. The following comments were indicative of those expressed by all participants including the lecturer:

“She [the lecturer] is just so easy to talk to and because she is easy to talk to, you find everyone else is a lot freer to talk about things….She sets the tone or the theme.” (Student3, Interview)
“The dialog and the connection and the lovely things that you hear them say to each other.” (Lecturer, Interview)

Two themes emerged as supportive of learners’ relatedness needs (see Table 1): the relationship with the lecturer and relationships with peers.

The most salient of these was the sense of connectedness with the lecturer. This theme encompassed several aspects that included the friendly, open, and caring approach of the lecturer; her willingness to share personal information; and her modeling of inclusivity and respect. This connection, in turn, encouraged learners to respond in a similar manner.

Student perceptions of the lecturer as caring and friendly were important in supporting learners’ relationship needs: “So nice to have such an interactive tutor, who cares where we’re at too” (Student9, online transcript).

The lecturer’s willingness to share personal information allowed learners to “relate to [the lecturer] as a person and not a lecturer” (Student4, interview) and “appreciate who she is and what she’s doing and where she is at in her life” (Student6, interview). Another student stated that the lecturer modeled inclusivity and respect that “embraced the whole lot of us as individuals, but as a group we were all valid. Everybody’s point of view is valid” (Student9, interview).

Peers who were perceived as friendly and caring, valued the contributions made by each individual, and respected what they had to offer, established mutually supportive relationships with fellow learners. These relationships were described as “friendliness” in an interview with Student7. Student3 said, “Everyone has got an opinion; everyone is valued for their opinion” (interview).

In addition, participants commented on the importance of the online inclusive learning community, in which their learning was situated where “we could all be open and honest and feel safe” (Student9, interview) as a result of the lecturer trying “to make everybody feel included” (Student4, interview).

Influences Supporting Perceptions of Autonomy

Relevance and Meaning. The importance of the learning activity in terms of its relevance and meaning emerged as a central theme that fostered the expression of autonomous motivation among learners. The importance of connecting to the lives of learners was evident.

All participants saw a clear link between their own experience during the activity and its relevance to their future teaching practice. The usefulness or utility value of the activity (i.e., a means to achieving a future goal) they were undertaking was clear, and they identified with it. Highlighting the relevance and applicability of an activity to future goals has been identified previously as important for supporting the autonomy needs of learners resulting in more self-determined motivation (Brophy, 2010).

The ability to make connections from the course content to their everyday lives, in terms of existing interests and prior experiences, enhanced the meaningfulness of the task and encouraged personal involvement for 7 of the 9 students. Learning activities that are relevant to personal goals, values, and interests have previously been shown to be autonomy supportive (Reeve et al., 2008). Personal relevance and task value are important sources of motivation to learn in online contexts as noted in previous studies (Artino, 2007; Keller, 2008; Xie et al., 2006).

Promotion of Interest. The lecturer supported learners’ autonomy needs through the promotion and maintenance of situational interest—interest generated by certain conditions in the learning environment (i.e., online activities that were considered hot topics and the lecturer’s enthusiasm for her subject). Maintained situational interest tends to be more sustained and has the effect of focusing attention over an extended period of time (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).

Interest is always content specific (Krapp, 2002). All participants reported being engaged, at least in part, because of the interest generated within the learning situation. Additionally, the lecturer created ongoing situational interest by the inclusion of regular online activities and resources that were topical, relevant, and meaningful, both personally and professionally, an approach supported by Hidi and Renninger (2006). The lecturer’s passion, enthusiasm, and commitment to her subject were other important factors that promoted learner interest as well feelings of connectedness with the lecturer and among participants. This finding corresponds to prior research that has shown situational interest and social relatedness to be significantly correlated (Boekaerts & Minnaert, 2006) and the importance of social presence of the teacher to learner motivation (Kehrwald, 2008).

The promotion of situational interest is an important finding, because it demonstrates that, while the potential for interest lies within the individual (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), the situation—in this case the teaching approach—also has an important bearing on its development and, therefore, by definition, motivation.

Seven out of the 9 participants also expressed a strong, well-developed preexisting individual interest in social studies content, which was further enhanced by the autonomy supportive context of the microteaching task. Opportunities to link learning activities to areas of personal interest have been shown previously to support autonomy, thereby promoting more self-determined forms of motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic; Reeve et al., 2008).

Opportunities to Use Subject Knowledge in Practice . Students liked being active and being able to put into practice what they were learning in an authentic way. All the participants said that having opportunities for action was a key feature that helped them to understand the importance, relevance, and value of the tasks, particularly to their future teaching practice. Tasks that involve a high degree of participation and activity have been shown to promote motivation (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004), learner engagement, and deeper understanding (Brophy, 2010; Keller, 2008).

Autonomy Supportive Lecturer. The lecturer’s online communication style emphasized flexibility and personal student responsibility rather than seeking compliance. The use of explicit, detailed information that clarifies what is required without seeking to control behavior has been identified previously as an important characteristic of autonomy supportive teachers (Reeve, 2009).

Provision of Choice . Most participants expressed perceptions that they had considerable choice. When the choices available were perceived as appealing, learners could align learning activities with their individual interests. Students indicated that the provision of choice enabled them to make connections between what they were learning and their personal and future teaching goals. While the term connectedness is often used in the context of interpersonal relationships, it can also be applied to teachers’ provision of learning activities that connect to learners’ lives, in terms of relevance to their needs, values, and personal goals.

Having opportunities to choose how and when to act promotes perceptions of choice, an internal locus of causality, and greater volition, according to Van Etten, Pressley, McInerney, & Liem (2008). The choices offered were not perceived by these participants as trivial or superficial, as can sometimes be the case with, for example, option choices (Reeve et al., 2003).

Influences That Supported Perceptions of Competence

Clear Guidelines and Expectations . All participants perceived that the amount, clarity and quality of information relating to the goals, guidelines and expectations of the assignment were sufficient and appropriate for their needs. From their perspectives, the quality of information provided a framework that assisted them in working towards the learning objectives of the activity with a measure of confidence. In this sense, the clear structure and guidelines likely not only supported competence needs but also perceptions of autonomy. Students make connections between assignment requirements and course goals, a factor known to promote motivation (Van Etten et al., 2008).

The fact that high structure within the learning activity can coexist and be seen as mutually supportive rather than conflicting with the autonomy needs of learners has been noted previously (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). This conceptualization of structure and autonomy as two independent, mutually supportive contextual variables (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008) is somewhat different than the notions in some distance education literature that learner autonomy and structure have an inverse relationship (Moore, 1993). That inverse relationship is due to a somewhat different interpretation of structure as a vehicle for teacher control, rather than as a means for learners to feel in control of their own learning.

Ongoing Guidance and Supportive Feedback. All participants perceived that the information they received from the lecturer guided, clarified, and facilitated the learning process, thereby supporting their need to feel effective. Previous research (Jang et al., 2010) has shown that intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation are most prevalent in learning environments where teachers provide structure (e.g., regular, constructive feedback) in an autonomy supportive manner (e.g., using informational language).

Timeliness and Responsiveness. Being available and approachable and answering queries promptly were also viewed by the participants as ways in which the lecturer provided support for their developing understanding. When a participant posed a question or needed assistance, students perceived the lecturer replied quickly, increasing their perceptions of responsiveness and online presence (as was also found in Bekele, 2010; Carpenter, 2011; Xie et al., 2006).

Judgments of High Self-Efficacy. The ways in which self-efficacy was fostered during the microteaching assignment was perceived as important in meeting participants’ competence needs. The assignment built on the prior knowledge and experience of learners, including microteaching and lesson planning mastery experiences, as well as existing subject knowledge. These factors were key in high self-efficacy judgments made by participants on commencing the assignment. Moreover, they had opportunities to put knowledge learned into practice in an authentic context. With verbal persuasion from the lecturer (as in Bandura, 1997) in the form of feedback and support, learners’ sense of competence continued to grow throughout the activity.

Helpful and Supportive Peers. Interaction was a way in which students met the competence needs of their classmates. The ways in which students provided learning assistance and support to each other in the form of clarifying expectations, sharing ideas, or offering suggestions contributed to their feelings that their competence needs were met.

Being able to seek and gain assistance from classmates was seen as a source of support and encouragement that, in conjunction with a supportive lecturer, met their needs to feel proficient within this context. It also demonstrated that tasks that may be difficult to accomplish alone could be achieved with the help of more competent others (Vygotsky, 1978), contributing to positive (i.e., more self-determined) patterns of motivation.

The value of collaboration has been well documented in the motivation (e.g., Brophy, 2010) and online learning (e.g., Anderson, 2006) literature, often in terms of meeting learners’ relatedness or social connectedness needs. In the study described here, support from peers also assisted in supporting the competence needs of students, which corresponds with previous studies (Van Etten et al., 2008; Xie, et al., 2006). The importance of fellow learners providing learning assistance and supporting the competence needs of their peers can be found in the community of inquiry model and the concept of teaching presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).

Usefulness and Relevance of the Resources Provided. Participants perceived the learning resources as useful in terms of (a) providing guidance that assisted them in navigating their way through the learning process and (b) supplying exemplars that clarified expectations in terms of quality of work. Structure supports competence needs, as reflected in previous studies in both traditional (Reeve et al., 2004) and online (Xie et al., 2006) settings.

Optimal Challenge . All participants perceived the learning activity to be optimally challenging, that is, where skill level and challenge were high and reasonably well-matched, and experienced a sense of satisfaction and achievement. Shroff, Vogel, and Coombes (2008) have shown that these feelings can contribute to expressions of higher self-determined motivation.

Influences That Supported Perceptions of Relatedness

Relationship With Lecturer. The supportive, caring approach of the lecturer was viewed by all participants as a positive, key feature of their experience. Teacher involvement has been shown to be a strong motivator for learners (Brophy, 2010). Online studies of motivation have also found that involvement of the instructor was critical in supporting students’ intrinsic motivation (Xie et al., 2006). More broadly, the value of social bonds in the online learning process (Rovai & Lucking, 2003), the social role of the online tutor (Anderson, 2006), and the need for skillful online facilitation by the instructor in order to nurture social presence and the development of an online community (Rovai, 2007) are well-recognized in the online literature.

The sharing of personal information through self-disclosure (by the lecturer) was highlighted by participants as a further way in which their need to experience personal connections was supported. The use of self-disclosure has been identified as a way of encouraging the development of relationships in online environments and is one of the affective indicators of social presence in online contexts (Kehrwald, 2008).

Experiences of feeling included and respected by the lecturer likely additionally supported the development of relationships and, consequently, the expression of more self-determined motivation. The adoption of a respectful and inclusive approach by the lecturer where multiple perspectives were appreciated seemed to encourage the development of an inclusive and respectful attitude among learners within the learning community (as also noted in Rovai, 2007).

Relationships With Peers . The importance of relationships with peers was evident across this investigation. The ways in which students in the wider class were friendly and caring, valued individual contributions, and demonstrated a respectful attitude contributed to their relatedness needs being met. In addition, participants commented on the importance of the inclusive learning community in which their learning was situated. The role played by the teacher in modeling this type of approach was highlighted by participants as critical to the development of an inclusive, respectful community.

The importance of inclusion and respect have been noted in the literature in terms of (a) encouraging and supporting motivation across diverse groups of students (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000), and (b) enabling the development of online communities along with the feelings of connectedness and social presence this can engender (Rovai, 2007).

Implications

This study has demonstrated that perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness by learners (which contribute toward feelings of self-determination) were influenced by online teaching practices, the design of learning activities, and the social aspects of the tasks in which they were engaged. This finding is hardly new or surprising given our current understanding of the situated nature of learning in traditional (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and online (Wegerif, 1998) contexts.

What is new is the consideration of these influences from a motivation perspective (through the analytical lenses of SDT) and the findings that, similar to learning, motivation is also context-dependent. The implication is that differing circumstances of students within the learning context need to be considered and, where possible, accommodated in order to support learners’ psychological needs and the expression of high quality (i.e., more self-determined) motivation among learners.

For online instructors, this means taking the time to find out the individual circumstances of students and remaining alert to anything that might result in course requirements being perceived as constraining in some way. By establishing frequent, ongoing communication with learners, where they feel able to discuss issues in an open and honest manner without fear of censorship, online instructors are in a better position to monitor and respond to situational factors that could potentially undermine learner motivation.

By providing guidelines and expectations at the outset of an activity that are as clear, detailed, and as unambiguous as possible, instructors can support learners’ competence needs. Furthermore, learning activities need to be optimally challenging by building on the prior knowledge, skills, and experience of learners. Online instructors must be familiar with students’ prior learning and develop activities accordingly. Additionally, online instructors need to monitor learners’ progress on an individual basis, as not all students will feel that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed.

Even when initial guidelines are clear and the challenge of the task and the skill level of learners are well-matched, the majority of learners still require varying degrees of ongoing task-related guidance and formative feedback to ensure that self-efficacy judgments remain high. This guidance needs to be offered in a timely, responsive, and informational manner. That is, feedback needs to be specific and detailed in order to clarify areas of student work that need addressing, and it needs to be communicated in a way that highlights these as problems to be solved (with support) rather than as criticism.

Teachers and instructional designers also need to be cognizant of the important role they play in influencing learner motivation when designing learning activities. Most importantly, the relevance and value of the task (e.g., online discussions) need to be clearly identified and linked to learning objectives to help learners understand how the activity can aid in the realization of personal goals, aspirations, and interests, both in the shorter and longer term. With meaningful choice (i.e., not just option choices) that allows learners to pursue topics of interest to them, the perceived value of the activity is further enhanced. In addition, designing activities that enable students to apply new learning in an authentic way (e.g., work-based practice) can promote immediate interest as well as help them to appreciate the larger importance of what they are learning.

By not equating autonomy with independence, as other have suggested (Moore, 1993), but instead envisaging autonomous acts as those “fully endorsed by the self and thus in accord with abiding values and interests” (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1560), this study has shown that learner autonomy and social relatedness can not only coexist but combine in ways that promote motivation to learn. Therefore, establishing a supportive network among learners within the wider class is an additional important motivation consideration.

Interaction is an essential element of a supportive community and must be built in to the overall structure of the course (Rovai, 2007). Respect, concern for others, and a culture of inclusiveness help to promote quality online interaction, which should be modeled by the online instructor. Strategies such as adopting a friendly approach and being willing to share relevant personal experiences are ways in which online instructors can develop and model supportive online relationships that facilitate motivation to learn.

Limitations

As with all research, there are a number of limitations with this study. The use of case study methodology meant that research findings are associated with a particular chosen context, namely one course that formed part of a preservice teacher education program within a single New Zealand university. The small number of participants also limits the transferability of the findings. The purpose of the research was to explore ways in which motivation to learn was supported within a specific context, not to provide nor to empirically validate a model. The findings are not generalizable. Our observations provide further evidence that motivation is a complex, multifaceted, and situation-dependent construct in which learners, their teachers, the learning design, the technological, and the organizational context play important and mutually constitutive roles.

Using the underlying concepts of self-determination theory, this study has uncovered a range of social and contextual factors that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness in an online course. In doing so, this study has developed, evaluated, and provided evidence for a richer model of supportive influences on motivation than has been previously attempted in studies of online learning.

In particular, the identification of a range factors that support self-determined extrinsic motivation as well as intrinsic motivation offers practical assistance in supporting teachers’ understanding of the dynamic interplay of factors that can support student motivation. These factors may assist in the creation of useful guidelines for teachers and instructional designers when considering the development of, and teaching within, online educational contexts, including newly emerging learning environments such as MOOCS.

The interplay of factors will vary within any given context and will almost certainly be different for every participant within it. But unless this complexity is recognized and understood, however, the risk of being inadequately prepared to face the challenge of developing practices that support the motivation of learners in the future is real.

Anderson, T. (2006). Interaction in learning and teaching on the educational semantic web. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 141-155). London, England: Routledge.

Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8 (3), 191-202.

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

Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and satisfaction in Internet-supported learning environments: A review. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (2), 116-127.

Blumer, H. (2006). What is wrong with social theory? In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook (pp. 84-96). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (2006). Affective and motivational outcomes of working in collaborative groups. Educational Psychology, 26 (2), 187-208.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Carpenter, J. K. (2011). An exploratory study of the role of teaching experience in motivation and academic achievement in a virtual ninth grade english I course (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3496901).

Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61-98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development (Vol. 23, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1985). Emergent motivation and the evolution of the self. In D. A. Kleiber & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 4, pp. 93-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dawson, S., Macfadyen, L., & Lockyer, L. (2009, December). Learning or performance: Predicting drivers of student motivation. Proceedings of the ascilite 2009 conference (pp. 184-193). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/all-abstracts.html

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development and health. Canadian Psychology, 49 (3), 182-185.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3/4), 325-346.

Evelein, F., Korthagen, F., & Brekelmans, M. (2008). Fulfilment of the basic psychological needs of student teachers during their first teaching experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (5), 1137-1148.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2), 87-105.

Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2000). Creating highly motivated classrooms for all students: A schoolwide approach to powerful teaching with diverse learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49 (3), 233-240.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24 (3), 175-213.

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies . New York, NY: Routledge.

Hartnett, M. (2010). Motivation to learn in online environments: An exploration of two tertiary education contexts (Doctoral thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://muir.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/2043

Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12 (6), 20-38. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1030

Haythornthwaite, C., & Andrews, R. (2011). E-learning theory and practice . London, England: Sage.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111-127.

Huang, H.-M., & Liaw, S.-S. (2007). Exploring learners’ self-efficacy, autonomy, and motivation toward e-learning. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 105 (2), 581-586.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It’s not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 588-600.

Kehrwald, B. A. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29 (1), 89-106.

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and E3-learning. Distance Education, 29 (2), 175-185.

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students’ motivation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (1), 36-51.

Kim, K.-J., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44 (1), 1-23.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405-427). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, Y.-M., Lin, G.-Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38 (1), 1-27.

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14 (3), 202-227.

Martens, R. L., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (5), 368-376.

Martens, R. L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Predicting intrinsic motivation. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107 (8), 1582-1600.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 23-38). London, England: Routledge.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 36 (3), 203 – 231.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 576-600

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (2), 270-300.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 159 – 175.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Big theories revisited (Vol. 4, pp. 31-60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 375-392.

Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Jang, H. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223-244). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers & Education, 59 (3), 893-906.

Robinson, B., & Latchem, C. (2003). Teacher education: Challenge and change. In B. Robinson & C. Latchem (Eds.), Teacher education through open and distance learning (pp. 1-27). London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (1), 77-88.

Rovai, A. P., & Lucking, R. (2003). Sense of community in a higher education television-based distance education program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (2), 5-16.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54-67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74 (6), 1557-1585.

Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and cultures. Personal Relationships, 12 (1), 145-163.

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

Shroff, R. H., & Vogel, D. R. (2009). Assessing the factors deemed to support individual student intrinsic motivation in technology supported online and face-to-face discussions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8 , 59-85.

Shroff, R. H., Vogel, D. R., & Coombes, J. (2008). Assessing individual-level factors supporting student intrinsic motivation in online discussions: A qualitative study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19 (1), 111-125.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change? Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43 (3), 119-131.

Van Etten, S., Pressley, M., McInerney, D. M., & Liem, A. D. (2008). College seniors’ theory of their academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 812-828.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimensions of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.aln.org/jaln/v2n1/social-dimension-asynchronous-learning-networks

Wighting, M. J., Liu, J., & Rovai, A. P. (2008). Distinguishing sense of community and motivation characteristics between online and traditional college students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (3), 285-295.

Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (1), 67-89.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 71-83. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

Author Notes

Maggie Hartnett Massey University NEW ZEALAND email: [email protected]

Alison St. George Massey University NEW ZEALAND Email: [email protected]

Jon Dron Athabasca University CANADA Email: [email protected]

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, connecting mirror nuclei with nuclear theory and neutron stars.

A scientific research team measured the nuclear charge radii of stable isotopes silicon-28, silicon-29, and silicon-30 at FRIB’s BEam COoler and LAser spectroscopy (BECOLA) facility . The team also measured the charge radii of the unstable isotope silicon-32 and compared it to that of its mirror nucleus, argon-32. These measurements will unlock new insights and expand our knowledge of nuclei and nuclear matter. The team recently published its findings in Physical Review Letters (“Nuclear charge radii of silicon isotopes”).

Ronald Fernando Garcia Ruiz , associate professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , and Kei Minamisono , senior scientist at FRIB and lead operator at the BECOLA facility, co-led the team. The lead author of the study was Kristian König . König, a researcher at the University of Darmstadt in Germany, was a postdoctoral researcher at FRIB. FRIB is the only accelerator-based DOE-SC user facility on a university campus. FRIB is operated by Michigan State University (MSU) to support the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities.

Measurements key to nuclear theories

The nuclear force binds protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus. It plays a critical role in the formation of stars and elements found in the universe. Yet, this force continues to challenge physicists from around the world. Its complex behavior makes it difficult to develop a broad nuclear theory that precisely predicts crucial observed properties of nuclei. One such crucial nuclei property is the nuclear charge radius. The nuclear charge radius is a measurement of the size and structure of an atomic nucleus, its proton distribution.

It is unknown whether nuclear theories that precisely describe nuclei can also describe the properties of nuclear matter in extreme conditions, like neutron stars. To answer these questions, scientists must measure the charge radii for nuclei with large proton-to-neutron imbalances.

Team’s findings match previous studies

The team extracted silicon monoxide molecules and fostered a molecular breakup. This allowed them to perform precision laser spectroscopy on silicon atoms. Using FRIB’s BECOLA facility, the team measured the nuclear charge radius of the unstable isotope silicon-32. This served as a test for several abstract predictions, including ab initio calculations. Ab initio calculations aim to calculate nuclear properties, starting from the underlying microscopic interactions of protons and neutrons. In this case, the experiment's findings matched the predictions of the ab initio lattice effective field theory approach. This study was carried out by a global research team that included Dean Lee , professor of physics at FRIB and in MSU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy and head of the Theoretical Nuclear Science department at FRIB. The team also included Yuan-Zhuo Ma , postdoctoral research associate at FRIB.

The charge radii of silicon-32 was compared to that of its mirror nucleus, argon-32. Argon-32 has protons and neutrons opposite to those of silicon-32. The charge radii difference between the two was used to constrain a parameter crucial for explaining the physics of astrophysical objects such as neutron stars. The constraint was found using a theory introduced by Alex Brown , professor of physics at FRIB and in MSU's Department of Physics and Astronomy. The team’s findings agree with results from independent experiments such as gravitational wave observations.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science .

COMMENTS

Theories of motivation: A comprehensive analysis of human behavior
This paper explores theories of motivation, including instinct theory, arousal theory, incentive theory, intrinsic theory, extrinsic theory, the ARCS model, self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, and goal-orientation theory. Each theory is described in detail, along with its key concepts, assumptions, and implications for behavior.
A Case Study of Motivation Theories application
Once this level is fulfilled, the next level up is what motivates us and so on. The motivation needs sequence are: 1. Biological and Physiological needs-air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex ...
Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories
In expectancy‐value theory, motivation is a function of the expectation of success and perceived value. Attribution theory focuses on the causal attributions learners create to explain the results of an activity, and classifies these in terms of their locus, stability and controllability. Social‐ cognitive theory emphasises self‐efficacy ...
20 Most Popular Theories of Motivation in Psychology
Content Theories of Motivation. Maslow's theory of the hierarchy of needs, Alderfer's ERG theory, McClelland's achievement motivation theory, and Herzberg's two-factor theory focused on what motivates people and addressed specific factors like individual needs and goals.
Motivation & Incentives: Articles, Research, & Case Studies on
Motivation and Incentives → New research on motivation and incentives from Harvard Business School faculty on issues including what motivates employees to contribute to organizational betterment, money as a motivator, the key to effective habit formation, and leveraging reputations to encourage prosocial behavior.
Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework
Several major theories have been established in research on motivation in education to describe, explain, and predict the direction, initiation, intensity, and persistence of learning behaviors. The most commonly cited theories of academic motivation include expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest theory, achievement goal theory, and attribution ...
PDF Work motivation: an evidence review
Self-determination theory was developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1970s and 1980s. Although the theory has grown and expanded since then, the basic premises of the theory come from their seminal book, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior (1985). According to the main postulate of self-determination theory ...
14.3 Need-Based Theories of Motivation
According to this theory, individuals acquire three types of needs as a result of their life experiences. These needs are need for achievement, need for affiliation, and need for power. All individuals possess a combination of these needs. Those who have high need for achievement have a strong need to be successful.
Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward
Twenty years ago, Murphy and Alexander (2000) reported 20 terms referring to motivation: four relating to goals (orientation, mastery, performance, work avoidance), two to interest (individual and situational), four to self-schema (agency, attribution, self-competence, and self-efficacy), and the remaining to the processes in the direction ...
Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward☆
1.2. The mechanisms of motivation. An individual may invoke expectations of success, have high confidence, want to model socially desirable others, find the task of value and aim for mastery goals, and see many benefits in engaging in the task. Or they have no confidence, model on others not engaged, see no value other than completing the task ...
The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job
Maslow's theory of motivation suggests that safety is a lower-order need that must be met before higher-order needs can be satisfied. Likewise, in Herzberg's two-factor theory, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) must be met in order to prevent dissatisfaction, in this case, within a healthcare institution (Dieleman et al., 2003).
5.1: A Motivating Place to Work: The Case of Zappos
Figure 5.1.1 5.1. 1: Robert Sinnett - Zappos! - CC BY 2.0. Performance is a function of motivation, ability, and the environment in which you work. Zappos seems to be creating an environment that encourages motivation and builds inclusiveness. The company delivers above and beyond basic workplace needs and addresses the self-actualization ...
PDF Motivational theory in practice at Tesco
This case study looks at how Tesco motivates its employees by increasing their knowledge, skillsand job satisfaction through training and development and providing relevant and timely reward ... In 1959 Frederick Herzberg developed the Two-Factor theory of motivation. His research showed that certain factors were the true
Rousing our motivation
Research into self-determination theory finds that three main psychological needs support optimal motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Annual Reviews of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4, 2017). The pandemic has been a disaster for all three, said Susan Fowler, a San Diego-based motivation consultant ...
8 Motivational Theories & How to Use Them in Work and Life
Similar to Maslow's theory above, Herzberg's two-factor theory should remind you to apply the need hierarchy to the workplace and ensure that work hygiene is satisfactory for all team members. Then you can attempt to introduce other motivating factors like incentives or promotion opportunities. 4. McClelland's theory.
Theories of Motivation: Introduction
Figure 5.1. Performance is a function of the interaction between an individual's motivation, ability, and environment. Motivation is one of the forces that lead to performance. Motivation is defined as the desire to achieve a goal or a certain performance level, leading to goal-directed behavior. When we refer to someone as being motivated, we ...
(PDF) How individual needs influence motivation effects: a
Since work life has changed dramatically the question arises whether these theories are still valid. This study validates the long-standing need theory of McClelland (Am Psychol 40(7):812-825 ...
14.2 Content Theories of Motivation
Describe a content theory of motivation. The theories presented in this section focus on the importance of human needs. A common thread through all of them is that people have a variety of needs. A need is a human condition that becomes "energized" when people feel deficient in some respect. When we are hungry, for example, our need for ...
Understanding employee motivation and organizational performance
Empirical evidence demonstrates that motivated employees mean better organizational performance. The objective of this conceptual paper is to articulate the progress that has been made in understanding employee motivation and organizational performance, and to suggest how the theory concerning employee motivation and organizational performance may be advanced.
14.4 Recent Research on Motivation Theories
Describe the modern advancements in the study of human motivation. Employee motivation continues to be a major focus in organizational behavior. 35 We briefly summarize current motivation research here. Content Theories. There is some interest in testing content theories (including Herzberg's two-factor theory), especially in international ...
An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation
Theories of work motivation are central to the field of management and are covered in many introductory management, leadership, human resource management and organizational behavior courses (Benson & Dresdow, 2019; Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004; Swain, Bogardus, & Lin, 2019).Understanding the concept of work motivation helps undergraduate students prepare for leading and managing others.
PDF A Study of Motivation: How to Get Your Employees Moving
Employees are motivated by the existence of the motivating factors, but are only dissatisfied, not unmotivated, by the hygiene. factors ("Motivation Theories"). One of Herzberg's leading arguments was, "for an employee to. be truly motivated, the employee's job has to be fully enriched where the employee has the.
Exploring Motivation in an Online Context: A Case Study
This paper reports on one aspect of a case study situated within a larger study that investigates the nature of motivation to learn of preservice teachers in an online environment. Using self-determination theory as an analytical framework, the focus here is on the underlying concepts of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
WK 8 Case Study Assignment (docx)
Management document from University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC), 6 pages, Week 8 Case Study Assignment University of Maryland Global Campus MGMT 630 9042 Organizational Theory and Behavior Professor Jerald Levine March 5, 2024 Background Ann McConnell, CIO at Jackson Spice Ingredients (JSI), a Maryland-based spice and food ing
The Case of Sherry (docx)
Psychology document from Lamar University, 5 pages, Case Study Week 2 Individual Counseling Theories and Techniques CNDV_5311_M21 Introductions Sherry is a 26-year-old woman who has experienced a lot of traumatic experiences in her adulthood, from experiencing robbery to instability in keeping a steady jo
Connecting mirror nuclei with nuclear theory and neutron stars
In this case, the experiment's findings matched the predictions of the ab initio lattice effective field theory approach. This study was carried out by a global research team that included Dean Lee, professor of physics at FRIB and in MSU's Department of Physics and Astronomy and head of the Theoretical Nuclear Science department at FRIB.

20 Most Popular Theories of Motivation in Psychology

This Article Contains:

External motivation

Introjected motivation

Identified motivation

Intrinsic motivation

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs

Alderfer’s ERG theory

McClelland’s achievement motivation theory

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory

Motivation theories explained in 10 minutes – EPM

Reinforcement theory

Adams’ equity theory of motivation

Vroom’s expectancy theory

Locke’s goal-setting theory

Theory X and Theory Y

The Hawthorne Effect

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

Optimal functioning hypothesis

Hull–Spence drive theory

Arousal-biased competition theory

Two memory systems theory

Processing efficiency theory

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

1. Understanding Motivation and Emotion – Johnmarshall Reeve

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

3. Motivation – Lambert Deckers

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

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

6. Human Motivation – Robert E. Franken

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Related articles

How to Encourage Clients to Embrace Change

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

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

Read other articles by their category

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura

College Students’ Time Management: a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective

Introduction

The Basic Motivational Model

Expectancy-Value Theory

Social Cognitive Theory

Self-Determination Theory

Interest Theory

Achievement Goal Theory

Attribution Theory

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

14.3 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Two-Factor Theory

Acquired Needs Theory

Key Takeaway

The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals

Stina Fransson Sellgren

Salem Altouby

Nasar Alwahaibi

Mats Brommels

Conclusions

1. Introduction

1.2. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation

1.3. Application of Herzberg's theory in different contexts

2.1. Setting and participants

2.2. Focus group discussion (FGD) procedures