Informasi

Bagaimana motivasi dipengaruhi oleh peluang imbalan?

Bagaimana motivasi dipengaruhi oleh peluang imbalan?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Terkadang, saya mengerjakan sebuah proyek di mana ada kemungkinan seluruh proyek menjadi tidak relevan sebelum selesai. Saya telah memperhatikan bahwa meskipun saya percaya bahwa risiko kejadian ini kecil, kadang-kadang akan sangat mempengaruhi motivasi saya, meskipun tidak pada setiap proyek di mana ada risiko seperti itu. Di sisi lain, ketika berjudi, seseorang bersedia melakukan sesuatu, ketika peluang hadiah praktis diabaikan.

Apakah ada eksperimen psikologis yang dapat menjelaskan mengapa kita bereaksi secara tidak rasional dalam situasi ini?


Estimasi subjektif kita terhadap probabilitas dipengaruhi oleh banyak faktor irasional, salah satunya adalah aksesibilitas eksemplar (Availability Heuristic). Karena kami biasanya mendengar tentang pemenang lotere, dan bukan tentang mereka yang tidak menang, kami memperkirakan kemungkinan menang terlalu tinggi. Ini mungkin mirip dengan perkiraan Anda tentang kemungkinan proyek menjadi tidak relevan - ini dipengaruhi oleh seberapa mudah Anda membayangkan proyek gagal, sesuatu yang dapat dipengaruhi oleh banyak faktor irasional (seperti seberapa percaya diri proyek pemimpin adalah, atau bahkan lebih buruk, betapa Anda menyukainya).

Dan Gilbert memiliki pembicaraan TED yang bagus yang menyebutkan Heuristik Ketersediaan dalam lotere dan bias serupa lainnya dalam memperkirakan keuntungan dan probabilitas.


Teori prospek bekerja/menggambarkan dua tahap dalam pengambilan keputusan di bawah risiko*.

Tahap 1:

Pengelompokan/pengelompokan hasil berdasarkan beberapa heuristik. yaitu mengelompokkan hasil yang mungkin ke dalam kelompok dan kemudian memilih titik referensi dari ini.

Tahap 2:

Sekarang mereka beralih ke teori utilitas yang diharapkan, dan bertindak sebagai agen rasional yang membuat keputusan berdasarkan nilai yang diharapkan.

Mengutip wikipedia:

Rumus yang diasumsikan Kahneman dan Tversky untuk fase evaluasi (dalam bentuknya yang paling sederhana) diberikan oleh

$U = sum_{i=1}^n w(p_i)v(x_i) = w(p_1)v(x_1) + w(p_2)v(x_2) +… + w(p_n)v(x_n)$

di mana $U$ adalah utilitas keseluruhan atau yang diharapkan dari hasil bagi individu yang membuat keputusan, $x_1, x_2,… , x_n$ adalah hasil potensial dan $p_1, p_2,… , p_n$ probabilitasnya masing-masing. Fungsinya $v$ adalah fungsi nilai yang memberikan nilai pada suatu hasil. Fungsinya $w$ adalah fungsi pembobotan probabilitas dan menyatakan bahwa orang cenderung bereaksi berlebihan terhadap kejadian dengan probabilitas kecil, tetapi kurang bereaksi terhadap probabilitas sedang dan besar.

Kerugian lebih menyakitkan daripada keuntungan terasa baik (keengganan kehilangan). Ini sangat berbeda dari teori utilitas yang diharapkan, di mana agen rasional acuh tak acuh terhadap titik referensi. Dalam teori utilitas yang diharapkan, individu hanya peduli tentang kekayaan absolut, bukan kekayaan relatif dalam situasi tertentu. Fungsi tersebut adalah fungsi pembobotan probabilitas dan menyatakan bahwa orang cenderung bereaksi berlebihan terhadap kejadian dengan probabilitas kecil, tetapi kurang bereaksi terhadap probabilitas sedang dan besar.

Perhatikan bahwa ini dibatasi oleh asumsi bahwa probabilitas hasil diketahui.

Untuk menerapkan pada kasus Anda, dengan arti apa pun, Anda harus mencoba mengukur kemungkinan kegagalan dalam kedua kasus dan juga memberi bobot pada jumlah sisi atas.

Dugaan saya adalah meskipun perjudian memiliki kemungkinan 50% Anda melihat gumpalan besar uang tunai langsung (rentang waktu singkat) sebagai utilitas tinggi sementara keuntungan dari menyelesaikan proyek dengan hadiah dalam rentang waktu yang lebih lama tampaknya mengurangi/menurunkan utilitas yang tampak.

Saya akan merekomendasikan algoritma ini untuk memerangi ini. Saya hanya mencoba sendiri.


Salah satu alasan untuk hasil yang berbeda dalam 2 kasus yang Anda soroti mungkin karena fokus peraturan yang berbeda (higgins).

Tidak membiarkan proyek terbuang sia-sia adalah fokus preventif dan dengan demikian dilengkapi dengan semua beban yang dimiliki fokus regulasi preventif. Seseorang pada dasarnya ingin menghindari hasil yang tidak diinginkan dan melihat hal-hal sebagai kerugian-nonloss (lihat hubungannya dengan teori prospek).

Memenangkan lotere di sisi lain adalah fokus promosi - seseorang ingin mencapai hasil yang diinginkan dan melihat hal-hal dalam hal keuntungan-nonprofit.

Sekarang motivasi atau komitmen tujuan biasanya dioperasionalkan sebagai komitmen = Harapan X Nilai.

Pertimbangkan fokus pencegahan - tujuannya adalah kebutuhan - komitmen tujuan adalah konstan (katakanlah 1 pada skala 0-1); ketika harapan atau peluang hasil berubah (hasil menjadi kemungkinan), Nilai tujuan menyesuaikan (tidak lagi penting untuk bekerja keras untuk mencegah proyek itu dari memo), tetapi komitmen tetap konstan.

Pertimbangkan fokus promosi - di sana kita mendapatkan efek ganda dari harapan pada nilai. Ekspektasi momen sudah cukup, tujuan yang sekarang dalam jangkauan menjadi lebih berharga dan komitmen meningkat secara berlipat ganda dan eksponensial daripada linier.

Semua ini telah dibuktikan secara eksperimental dan didukung oleh teori. Dalam kasus Anda, fokus pencegahan 'proyek tidak dihapus' tidak meningkatkan komitmen Anda terhadap tujuan, melainkan membuat tujuan tampak kurang berharga karena peluang untuk tidak menghapus meningkat. Di sisi lain perjudian adalah fokus promosi; saat Anda membuat hit dan salah percaya bahwa Anda hampir mendapatkan jackpot , Anda terus tersedot ke dalam lebih banyak perjudian, dan komitmen terus meningkat dan nilai jackpot juga terus meningkat.


Semakin banyak penelitian dalam psikologi kognitif menunjukkan fakta bahwa kita mungkin terlalu menekankan proses otak sebagai pusat penentuan tindakan. Kita cenderung melihat otak dalam hal proses top-down tetapi ini jauh dari kasus. Jika Anda benar-benar menginginkan pandangan motivasi yang kaya dan menghibur, bacalah buku Damasio, Descartes Error (1994).

Damasio adalah orang pertama yang mendalilkan hipotesis penanda somatik atau teori bahwa reaksi tubuh somatik adalah sumber pilihan heuristik. Dengan demikian, reaksi "usus" benar-benar merupakan reaksi somatik saraf di luar SSP yang memengaruhi pilihan tindakan pada akhirnya. Secara harfiah Anda tidak "merasa" ingin mengambil tindakan. Hipotesis penanda somatik mulai berkembang:

  • Didukung oleh penelitian seperti analisis waktu biaya penghambatan (misalnya penambahan kata-kata yang lebih menonjol secara emosional pada tes yang tidak boleh digunakan meningkatkan biaya waktu reaksi)
  • Lihatlah Eddie Harmon-Jones sebagai penulis untuk bukti pengalaman dan neurologis.
  • Ada bukti bahwa penanda somatik bertanggung jawab atas disonansi kognitif subliminal terutama pada bias rasial. Orang-orang yang ditipu menjadi tanggapan yang bias lebih mungkin untuk menawarkan bantuan atau menilai secara baik anggota ras minoritas yang diberikan kesempatan - lagi-lagi perbedaan somatik mengubah rute pengambilan keputusan yang rasional.

Saya tahu sulit untuk percaya bahwa neuron di usus mungkin bertanggung jawab atas penundaan Anda, tetapi jika secangkir hangat sesuatu di tangan Anda membuat Anda lebih cenderung menilai suatu objek dengan baik, maka… Baca Damisio, sungguh, Anda akan menyukainya.


Bagaimana pengetahuan tentang psikologi motivasi dan emosi membantu orang memahami dan menanggapi perilaku manusia?

Perhatikan lebih banyak tentang hal itu. Selain itu, mengapa motivasi dan emosi penting dalam psikologi?

Banyak psikolog percaya bahwa hubungan antara motivasi dan emosi muncul dari tiga alasan. Pertama, gairah emosi dan motif dari motivasi keduanya mengaktifkan atau memberi energi pada perilaku. Kedua, emosi sering pergi bersama-sama dengan motif. Misalnya, kebahagiaan memotivasi seseorang untuk mencapai kinerja yang lebih baik.

Selanjutnya, pertanyaannya adalah, bagaimana rasa takut memotivasi perilaku manusia? '. Takut adalah keuntungan emosi dan evolusi yang dirasakan oleh manusia dan hewan dalam menanggapi ancaman yang dirasakan. Hal ini digunakan untuk motivasi seseorang atau hewan untuk terlibat dalam a perilaku yang paling mungkin untuk memungkinkan mereka untuk bertahan hidup. Kecemasan menimbulkan perasaan takut dan khawatir tetapi tidak selalu diketahui apa yang memicunya.

Demikian pula orang mungkin bertanya, dengan cara apa manusia termotivasi untuk berperilaku?

manusia adalah termotivasi berdasarkan tujuan atau insentif. 2: Bagaimana seseorang dapat meningkatkan motivasi untuk berperilaku dalam berbagai cara? Seseorang dapat meningkatkan motivasi hanya dengan berusaha lebih keras, atau menawarkan diri mereka insentif, atau hadiah untuk perilaku yang mereka inginkan.

Apa motivasi manusia dalam psikologi?

Motivasi adalah dorongan untuk berperilaku atau bertindak dengan cara yang akan memuaskan kondisi tertentu, seperti keinginan, keinginan, atau tujuan. Psikolog percaya itu motivasi berakar pada dorongan dasar untuk mengoptimalkan kesejahteraan, meminimalkan rasa sakit fisik, dan memaksimalkan kesenangan.


Manajemen Hadiah

Psikologi Kerja dan Organisasi, Departemen Psikologi, University of Trier, Jerman

Departemen Kewirausahaan, Tata Kelola dan Area Strategi, Vlerick Business School, Belgia

Institut Kebijakan Global, Universitas Metropolitan London, Inggris

Fakultas Bisnis, Departemen Manajemen dan Pemasaran, Universitas Politeknik Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Cina

Psikologi dan Kepemimpinan Kerja, Departemen Teknik dan Manajemen Industri, School of Science, Aalto University, Finland

Perusahaan menginvestasikan sumber daya keuangan yang sangat besar dalam sistem dan praktik penghargaan untuk menarik, mempertahankan, dan memotivasi karyawan dan dengan demikian memastikan dan meningkatkan efektivitas individu, tim, dan organisasi. Penghargaan organisasi terdiri dari penghargaan finansial dan nonfinansial, seperti penghargaan, keamanan kerja, dan promosi. Imbalan finansial, juga disebut imbalan berwujud, termasuk bentuk langsung (seperti pembayaran tetap dan variabel dan kepemilikan saham) serta bentuk tidak langsung dan/atau ditangguhkan (seperti tunjangan dan penghasilan tambahan). Gaji tetap atau gaji pokok mengacu pada jumlah uang yang diterima seseorang sebagai imbalan untuk memenuhi persyaratan pekerjaan seseorang, tingkat pekerjaan, atau tingkat keterampilan atau kompetensi yang diperlukan untuk melakukan tugas. Pembayaran variabel (seperti bonus tunai dan komisi sebagai bentuk insentif jangka pendek, atau saham atau opsi saham sebagai bentuk insentif jangka panjang) tergantung, misalnya, pada kinerja atau hasil individu, tim, dan/atau perusahaan, dan berdasarkan kriteria kuantitatif dan/atau kualitatif. Manfaat (seperti program pensiun atau program kesehatan) dan tambahan (seperti pusat kebugaran di tempat, perawatan medis atau fasilitas kesehatan, dan mobil perusahaan), antara lain, adalah imbalan finansial tidak langsung (Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart, 2016). Baik tinjauan kualitatif (Gerhart & Fang, 2014 Shaw & Gupta, 2015) dan studi meta-analitik (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014 Garbers & Konradt, 2014 Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw, 1998) telah menunjukkan bahwa penghargaan ekstrinsik (seperti insentif keuangan) dapat meningkatkan motivasi dan kinerja karyawan serta membentuk kesehatan karyawan (Giles, Robalino, McColl, Sniehotta, & Adams, 2014) dan perilaku keselamatan (Mattson, Torbiörn, & Hellgren, 2014). Namun, bukti empiris mengenai kondisi mana penghargaan tertentu paling efektif atau menyebabkan konsekuensi yang tidak diinginkan masih langka. Singkatnya, sistem kompensasi dan insentif tetap menjadi salah satu bidang yang paling kurang diteliti dalam psikologi personel dan manajemen sumber daya manusia (Gupta & amp Shaw, 2015).

Keadaan ini menimbulkan risiko. Pendekatan manajemen penghargaan mungkin membuang-buang uang dan tenaga, dan mungkin tidak efektif dalam menarik, mempertahankan, dan memotivasi personel target, jika tidak didasarkan pada bukti. Selain itu, dalam menghadapi krisis keuangan baru-baru ini dan kasus serius perilaku tidak etis karyawan dan perusahaan, insentif keuangan perusahaan, terutama sistem bonus dan pembayaran untuk kinerja (pay-for-performance (pfp), telah banyak dikritik karena efek merugikannya pada individu. , perusahaan, dan masyarakat (Larcker, Ormazabal, Tayan, & Taylor, 2014). Contoh-contoh sisi gelap insentif ini menyoroti pentingnya penelitian manajemen penghargaan, tidak hanya dari manajemen sumber daya manusia (SDM) tetapi juga dari perspektif masyarakat. Mereka juga menggambarkan kebutuhan untuk memahami mekanisme mediasi dan moderasi yang mendasari yang menghubungkan sistem dan praktik penghargaan dengan perilaku dan hasil individu, tim, dan organisasi. Masalah khusus ini berkontribusi pada penelitian tentang manajemen penghargaan dengan berfokus pada efek kontekstual dari penghargaan finansial pada motivasi, perilaku, dan kinerja karyawan, dan dengan menganalisis mekanisme mediasi dari berbagai jenis penghargaan finansial dan nonfinansial.

Empat studi yang termasuk dalam edisi khusus ini membahas berbagai masalah penelitian manajemen penghargaan dan mengambil perspektif teoretis yang berbeda. Dua studi pertama menganalisis efek interaksi insentif keuangan dan faktor individu, seperti persepsi karyawan tentang keadilan distributif, dan kemudian bagaimana daya saing individu memoderasi efek bayar-untuk-kinerja (pfp) pada motivasi, perilaku, dan kinerja karyawan. Studi-studi ini menunjukkan mana dan bagaimana konsekuensi yang diinginkan atau tidak diinginkan dari pfp terjadi. Dua studi lainnya membedakan efek penghargaan berwujud dan tidak berwujud pada pergantian karyawan dan pengambilan risiko. Mereka menguraikan mekanisme mediasi dan moderasi yang mendasarinya dengan membandingkan efek tunjangan dan penghasilan tambahan, dan penghargaan, keamanan, dan promosi sebagai penghargaan nonfinansial. Dalam bagian berikut, kami menyajikan gambaran singkat dari keempat makalah ini sebelum kami membahas kontribusi mereka dan implikasinya untuk penelitian lebih lanjut.

Salah satu konsekuensi yang tidak diinginkan dari penghargaan finansial telah diasumsikan erosi motivasi intrinsik, juga disebut efek crowding-out atau melemahkan insentif ekstrinsik. Efek ini disarankan oleh pendukung teori evaluasi kognitif dan terutama didasarkan pada temuan dalam pengaturan non-kerja atau dengan sampel anak, atau dalam situasi di mana penghargaan telah ditangguhkan tanpa penjelasan (misalnya, Deci, Koestner, & amp Ryan, 1999 Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2010). Sebaliknya, temuan studi primer dan meta-analitik biasanya tidak menunjukkan efek crowding-out dari insentif ekstrinsik (Gerhart & Fang, 2014), dan lebih menunjukkan bahwa motivasi intrinsik meningkat dengan adanya insentif keuangan (Giles et al. , 2014). Akibatnya, penelitian telah mulai mendamaikan temuan yang bertentangan ini dengan asumsi evaluasi kognitif dan teori penentuan nasib sendiri. Thibault Landry dan rekan (2017) berkontribusi pada penelitian ini dengan menganalisis apakah sistem insentif keuangan dapat memenuhi kebutuhan otonomi dan kompetensi karyawan (ketika bonus didistribusikan secara adil, sehingga memperkuat otonomi dan motivasi) dan akhirnya meningkatkan kinerja. Mereka melakukan tiga studi lapangan: satu studi lapangan cross-sectional di Yunani dengan menggunakan sampel profesi yang beragam, dan dua studi longitudinal di Kanada dengan sampel pekerja teknologi tinggi dan penasihat keuangan yang menerima bonus tahunan berdasarkan kinerja. Temuan dari ketiga studi menunjukkan bahwa keadilan distributif memoderasi hubungan antara insentif keuangan dan kepuasan kebutuhan otonomi. Dalam dua dari tiga studi, keadilan distributif juga memoderasi hubungan antara insentif keuangan dan kepuasan kebutuhan kompetensi. Peningkatan dan penyangga efek keadilan distributif pada hubungan antara insentif keuangan dan kepuasan kebutuhan bervariasi di seluruh studi tergantung pada hubungan positif atau negatif antara insentif keuangan dan kompetensi dan kepuasan kebutuhan otonomi. Pada umumnya, temuan studi mendukung hipotesis bahwa sistem insentif keuangan dapat memenuhi kebutuhan karyawan akan otonomi dan kompetensi, ketika bonus didistribusikan secara adil. Dalam kasus ini, bonus memperkuat motivasi otonom dan pada akhirnya meningkatkan kinerja kerja. Dengan demikian, rencana kompensasi yang menggunakan insentif keuangan seperti bonus tahunan bisa efektif, ketika penghargaan didistribusikan secara adil. Namun, berbagai hubungan positif atau negatif antara insentif keuangan dan kepuasan kebutuhan di seluruh studi juga menunjukkan bahwa variabel lain mungkin mempengaruhi bagaimana insentif keuangan dirasakan.

Efek potensial lain yang sering dibahas dari insentif keuangan adalah bahwa pfp individu mengurangi kerja sama dan bahkan mungkin meningkatkan perilaku menyimpang, seperti merugikan orang lain atau sabotase (Gerhart & amp Fang, 2014). Gläser, van Gils, dan Van Quaquebeke (2017) berkontribusi pada debat ini dan menunjukkan, dengan desain studi yang bervariasi, bahwa tingkat sifat individu dan daya saing negara dapat memengaruhi cara karyawan memandang pfp dan bereaksi terhadapnya dengan perilaku menyimpang. Hasil mereka didasarkan pada tiga penelitian. Dalam studi cross-sectional pertama, karyawan dari berbagai organisasi Jerman yang menerima bonus lump-sum tahunan berdasarkan kinerja berpartisipasi secara online. Kemudian, dua eksperimen online dilakukan dengan peserta dari studi panel digital dan Amazon Mechanical Turk mengambil bagian dalam permainan dadu kompetitif, di mana dalam satu studi hanya pemenang yang diberi hadiah, sementara di studi lain setiap pemain dapat memenangkan bonus. Temuan mereka menunjukkan bahwa program pfp dapat meningkatkan penyimpangan interpersonal karyawan, yaitu perilaku merugikan yang aktif terhadap rekan kerja, ketika karyawan memiliki daya saing individu yang tinggi, yaitu memiliki keinginan yang kuat untuk perbandingan interpersonal dan ingin menjadi lebih baik dari yang lain. Tidak ada hubungan signifikan antara ukuran pfp dan penyimpangan interpersonal yang ditemukan untuk peserta yang memiliki sifat rendah atau daya saing negara.

Sementara dua studi pertama dalam masalah ini fokus pada efek moderasi pfp, dua studi berikut membahas efek diferensial dan mekanisme mediasi bentuk pembayaran tidak langsung dan insentif nonfinansial pada pergantian dan pengambilan risiko. Khususnya di pasar tenaga kerja yang sangat kompetitif, seperti sektor teknologi informasi dan komunikasi (TIK), perusahaan tidak hanya menawarkan gaji yang menarik, tetapi juga tunjangan (seperti program pensiun dan asuransi kesehatan swasta) dan, baru-baru ini, bahkan fasilitas tambahan (seperti pusat kebugaran di tempat, fasilitas perawatan medis, atau makanan berbayar) untuk membuat karyawan merasa bahwa mereka dihargai. Pada gilirannya, ini diasumsikan mengarah pada retensi karyawan kunci yang lebih baik dan pengurangan pergantian yang tidak diinginkan (Fortune, 2016). Bentuk pembayaran tidak langsung ini bisa sangat mahal dan penelitian tentang efek komparatif dari tunjangan dan penghasilan tambahan pada omset masih langka. Renaud, Morin, dan Béchard (2017) berkontribusi pada topik ini dengan membandingkan dampak longitudinal dari tunjangan dan paket manfaat tradisional pada niat untuk tinggal dan dengan menganalisis peran mediasi komitmen organisasi afektif. Dalam studi online longitudinal dengan tiga titik pengukuran (setelah 6, 12, dan 18 bulan peserta bersama perusahaan), karyawan baru perusahaan Kanada di sektor TIK melaporkan kepuasan mereka dengan fasilitas dan tunjangan yang diberikan, organisasi afektif mereka. komitmen, dan niat mereka untuk tetap sebagai indikator pergantian karyawan. Temuan studi menunjukkan bahwa kepuasan dengan manfaat tradisional memiliki dampak langsung yang lebih kuat pada niat untuk tinggal daripada kepuasan dengan fasilitas tambahan. Selanjutnya, ketika manfaat dan tunjangan dianalisis secara terpisah, komitmen organisasi afektif sebagian memediasi efek kepuasan dengan manfaat tradisional pada niat untuk tinggal, sementara sepenuhnya memediasi efek kepuasan dengan tunjangan pada niat untuk tinggal.

Skandal bisnis (misalnya, skandal Enron dan kebangkrutan pada tahun 2001, dan kebangkrutan Lehman Brothers pada tahun 2008, yang memicu krisis keuangan global) telah memindahkan pengambilan risiko etis dan finansial dari karyawan dan manajer serta efek insentif terhadap dalam debat akademik dan publik. Penelitian manajemen risiko telah menunjukkan bahwa usia dan pengambilan risiko keuangan dan etika terkait. Ceschi, Costantini, Dickert, dan Sartori (2017) berkontribusi pada hal ini dengan menganalisis apakah imbalan nonfinansial yang dirasakan memoderasi dan memediasi hubungan ini. Mereka membandingkan efek moderat dari penghargaan, keamanan, dan penghargaan promosi pada hubungan antara usia dan pengambilan risiko keuangan dan etika di antara manajer perusahaan Italia. Mereka menunjukkan bahwa usia dan pengambilan risiko berhubungan negatif, yaitu, manajer muda melaporkan mengambil lebih banyak risiko keuangan dan etika daripada manajer senior. Analisis moderasi menunjukkan efek interaksi penghargaan promosi pekerjaan dan usia: Peluang rendah untuk promosi pekerjaan tampaknya menjadi faktor kunci bagi keputusan manajer muda untuk mengambil risiko keuangan, sedangkan tidak ada hubungan antara usia dan pengambilan risiko yang ditemukan ketika peluang tinggi untuk promosi pekerjaan dirasakan. Temuan juga menunjukkan bahwa keamanan kerja dan promosi sebagian memediasi hubungan antara usia dan pengambilan risiko etis.

Singkatnya, temuan yang disajikan dalam edisi khusus ini memberikan setidaknya empat kontribusi untuk pemahaman kita tentang kondisi moderasi dan proses mediasi dampak penghargaan finansial dan nonfinansial pada motivasi, perilaku, dan kinerja karyawan. Pertama, persepsi keadilan distributif dapat memoderasi efek imbalan finansial. Ketika bonus tahunan kontingen kinerja dianggap didistribusikan secara adil, mereka dapat memenuhi kebutuhan karyawan akan otonomi dan kompetensi, dan dengan demikian memperkuat motivasi otonom dan, pada gilirannya, kinerja kerja. Mengidentifikasi proses moderasi dan mediasi ini menambah pemahaman kita tentang mengapa efek crowding-out dari penghargaan ekstrinsik tidak terjadi. Ini juga menjelaskan validitas asumsi evaluasi kognitif dan teori penentuan nasib sendiri. Kedua, daya saing sebagai karakteristik individu dapat mempengaruhi bagaimana karyawan memandang dan bereaksi terhadap pfp dengan perilaku menyimpang. Ketika karyawan memiliki keinginan yang kuat untuk perbandingan interpersonal dan ingin menjadi lebih baik dari yang lain, yaitu sangat kompetitif, program pfp dapat meningkatkan penyimpangan interpersonal karyawan, yaitu perilaku merugikan secara aktif terhadap rekan kerja.

Ketiga, perusahaan dapat mencapai efek yang lebih kuat pada niat untuk tinggal dengan menawarkan manfaat (misalnya, rencana asuransi kesehatan swasta) daripada fasilitas tambahan (misalnya, fasilitas perawatan medis di tempat). Kepuasan karyawan dengan tunjangan tampaknya meningkatkan niat mereka untuk tinggal baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung melalui peningkatan komitmen organisasi afektif, sedangkan kepuasan dengan tunjangan tampaknya hanya memiliki efek tidak langsung melalui komitmen. Keempat, manajer muda melaporkan lebih banyak pengambilan risiko keuangan dan etika daripada manajer senior. Pengambilan risiko keuangan manajer muda tampaknya bergantung pada peluang yang mereka rasakan untuk promosi pekerjaan, karena tidak ada hubungan antara usia dan pengambilan risiko yang ditemukan ketika peluang promosi pekerjaan yang tinggi dirasakan.

Kami berharap bahwa edisi khusus ini merangsang penelitian longitudinal, metode campuran, dan multilevel lebih lanjut untuk membandingkan efek dari jenis dan praktik penghargaan tertentu pada motivasi karyawan dan pada hasil individu, tim, dan organisasi. Ada kebutuhan untuk menganalisis mekanisme mediasi yang mendasari dan untuk mengidentifikasi variabel tingkat individu, tim, atau organisasi yang memoderasi hubungan ini. Empat studi dalam edisi ini hanya membahas beberapa dari pertanyaan penelitian terbuka yang disoroti dalam call for paper kami, dan isu-isu lain dapat ditambahkan. Selanjutnya, studi dalam masalah ini hanya fokus pada tingkat analisis individu. Pertanyaan tentang bagaimana variabel tingkat tim atau organisasi, seperti struktur kerja, perilaku kepemimpinan, budaya organisasi, dan strategi perusahaan, mempengaruhi hubungan antara jenis penghargaan tertentu atau kombinasi dari berbagai jenis penghargaan dan hasil penghargaan terbuka untuk penyelidikan lebih lanjut. Dengan demikian, penelitian masa depan memiliki tantangan untuk mengatasi efek multi dan lintas tingkat penghargaan organisasi dan kontinjensi tingkat individu, tim, dan organisasi. Sampai saat ini, penelitian manajemen penghargaan multilevel berbasis empiris telah menjadi pengecualian (misalnya, Trevor & Wazeter, 2006). Namun, makalah konseptual terbaru tentang pendekatan multilevel terhadap efek variasi gaji (Conroy, Gupta, Shaw, & Park, 2014) atau pembayaran tim untuk kinerja (Conroy & Gupta, 2016) menawarkan model yang menjanjikan untuk memandu penyelidikan empiris selanjutnya.

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M. & Ford, M. T. (2014). Motivasi intrinsik dan insentif ekstrinsik bersama-sama memprediksi kinerja: Sebuah meta-analisis 40 tahun. Buletin Psikologis , 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., Dickert, S. & Sartori, R. (2017). Dampak penghargaan pekerjaan pada pengambilan risiko di antara para manajer. Jurnal Psikologi Personalia , 16, 105-112. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000184 Kutipan pertama di artikelLink, Google Scholar

Conroy, S. A. & Gupta, N. ( 2016 ). Pembayaran tim untuk kinerja: Iblis ada dalam detailnya. Grup & Manajemen Organisasi , 41, 32–65. doi: 10.1177/1059601115607746 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Conroy, S. A., Gupta, N., Shaw, J. D. & Park, T. Y. (2014). Pendekatan bertingkat untuk efek variasi gaji. Riset dalam Manajemen Personalia dan Sumber Daya Manusia , 32, 1–64. doi: 10.1108/S0742-730120140000032001 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999). Tinjauan meta-analitik dari eksperimen yang memeriksa efek penghargaan ekstrinsik pada motivasi intrinsik. Buletin Psikologis , 125, 627–668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Garbers, Y. & Konradt, U. ( 2014 ). Pengaruh insentif keuangan pada kinerja: Sebuah tinjauan kuantitatif insentif keuangan individu dan berbasis tim . Jurnal Psikologi Kerja dan Organisasi , 87, 102–137. doi: 10.1111/joop.12039 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Gerhart, B. & Fang, M. ( 2014 ). Bayar untuk kinerja (individu): Masalah, klaim, bukti, dan peran efek penyortiran . Tinjauan Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia , 24, 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.010 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Giles, E. L., Robalino, S., McCol, E., Sniehotta, F. F. & amp Adams, J. (2014). Efektivitas insentif keuangan untuk perubahan perilaku kesehatan: Tinjauan sistematis dan meta-analisis. PLoS Satu , 9, e90347. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090347 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Gläser, D., van Gils, S. & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2017). Bayar-untuk-kinerja dan penyimpangan antarpribadi: Daya saing sebagai korek api yang menyalakan api . Jurnal Psikologi Personalia , 16, 78–91. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000181 Kutipan pertama di artikelLink, Google Scholar

Gupta, N. & Shaw, J. D. ( 2015 ). Kompensasi karyawan: Area penelitian HRM yang terabaikan. Tinjauan Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia , 24, 1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.007 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Jenkins, G. D. Jr., Mitra, A., Gupta, N. & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Apakah insentif keuangan terkait dengan kinerja? Sebuah tinjauan meta-analitik penelitian empiris. Jurnal Psikologi Terapan , 83, 777–787. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.777 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Larcker, D. F., Ormazabal, G., Tayan, B. & Taylor, D. J. (2014, September). Ikuti uangnya: Kompensasi, risiko, dan krisis keuangan . Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Seri Melihat Lebih Dekat: Topik, Isu dan Kontroversi dalam Tata Kelola Perusahaan No. CGRP-43 Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 14-34. Diperoleh dari https://ssrn.com/abstract=2493398. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2493398 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Mattson, M., Torbiörn, I. & Hellgren, J. (2014). Pengaruh sistem bonus staf pada perilaku keselamatan. Tinjauan Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia , 24, 17–30. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.012 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Milkovich, G., Newman, J. & Gerhart, B. (2016). Kompensasi (edisi ke-12). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kutipan pertama dalam artikelGoogle Cendekia

Renaud, S., Morin, L. & Béchard, A. (2017). Manfaat tradisional versus penghasilan tambahan: Sebuah tes longitudinal dampak diferensial mereka pada pergantian karyawan . Jurnal Psikologi Personalia , 16, 92-104. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000180 Kutipan pertama di artikelLink, Google Scholar

Shaw, J. D. & Gupta, N. ( 2015 ). Biarkan bukti berbicara lagi! Insentif keuangan lebih efektif dari yang kita duga. Jurnal Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia , 25, 281–293. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12080 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Thibault Landry, A., Gagné, M., Forest, J., Guerrero, S., Séguin, M. & Papachristopoulos, K. ( 2017 ). Hubungan antara insentif keuangan, motivasi, dan kinerja: Sebuah investigasi berbasis SDT integratif . Jurnal Psikologi Personalia , 16, 61–77. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000182 Kutipan pertama di artikelLink, Google Scholar

Trevor, C. O. & Wazeter, D. L. (2006). Pandangan kontingen reaksi terhadap kondisi pembayaran objektif: Saling ketergantungan antara karakteristik struktur gaji dan gaji relatif terhadap referensi internal dan eksternal. Jurnal Psikologi Terapan , 91, 1260–1275. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1260 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar

Weibel, A., Rost, K. & Osterloh, M. (2010). Bayar untuk kinerja di sektor publik – Manfaat dan biaya (tersembunyi). Jurnal Penelitian dan Teori Administrasi Publik , 20, 387–412. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mup009 Kutipan pertama di artikelCrossref, Google Scholar


Pengaruh motivasi penghargaan pada memori deklaratif manusia

Relevansi motivasi memprioritaskan informasi dalam memori berdasarkan nilai penghargaan.

Hadiah memandu perhatian, memberi energi pada perilaku, dan meningkatkan konsolidasi memori.

Nilai hadiah dapat digeneralisasi dari satu stimulus ke stimulus yang serupa atau terkait.

Aktivitas sistem hippocampal dan reward yang terkoordinasi meningkatkan integrasi memori.

Bagaimana asosiasi penghargaan yang dipelajari mempengaruhi pembelajaran selanjutnya masih belum diketahui.


Bagaimana Kepribadian dan Perilaku Mempengaruhi Psikologi

Kebanyakan orang telah mengalami fenomena mencoba mengubah perilaku atau kebiasaan negatif dan menemukan bahwa proses perubahan itu sulit. Siapa pun yang telah membuat resolusi untuk berhenti merokok atau berolahraga setiap hari, misalnya, tahu secara langsung betapa sulitnya proses perubahan pola dan perilaku.

Manusia terikat pada kebiasaan. Seperti yang diamati oleh Wood, Tarn, dan Witt (2005), “Kehidupan sehari-hari dicirikan oleh pengulangan…. 47% aktivitas sehari-hari masyarakat dilakukan hampir setiap hari dan biasanya di lokasi yang sama. Konsistensi kehidupan sehari-hari membentuk kebiasaan, atau disposisi perilaku untuk mengulangi tindakan yang dipraktikkan dengan baik dalam situasi yang berulang" (hal. 918). Tidak semua kebiasaan itu buruk, tentu ada yang perlu dan adaptif. Namun, bagi orang yang ingin mengubah kebiasaan negatif yang mengancam kesehatan, memahami bagaimana teori kepribadian menginformasikan proses perubahan dapat meningkatkan peluang mereka untuk sukses.

Teori kepribadian sosial-kognitif sangat tertarik untuk menggambarkan dan menjelaskan bagaimana proses perubahan bekerja. As noted social-cognitive theorist Bandura (2001) observes, “The capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s life is the essence of humanness" (p. 1). For this reason, social-cognitive theorists have devoted extensive effort to identifying the mechanisms of personality that either foster or inhibit change. According to Schwarz (2001), the social cognitive theory of personality considers change to be comprised of two distinct processes that must be deployed in stages. The first process is developing the awareness of a problem and developing the motivation to change that problem and experience relief. Many people can reach this stage and resolve it successfully however, social-cognitive theorists acknowledge that there is often a gap between this stage and the second stage, which they characterize as a disconnect between “informed awareness and the intention to act" (Sheeshka, Woolcott, & Mackinnon, 1993). The second process, which Schwarz (2001) refers to as volition, involves the actual planning and implementation of the change behavior. The volition process is challenging because it also involves the maintenance of the new behavior over the course of time. Social-cognitive theorists have contributed a great deal to our understanding of this phase of the change process, particularly because they posit that relapse and reactivation of motivation are normal parts of the effort to change a negative behavior.

Behavioral theory has also long been interested in explaining how people change habits. In fact, one might argue that behavioral theory was founded in order to explain the change process. Pavlov’s and Skinner’s classical experiments demonstrate concretely how change can be motivated and negotiated by external forces, including the use of positive or negative reinforcement to provoke an adaptive response and compensate for weaknesses (Elder, 1999). Both Pavlov and Skinner concluded that the patterns of human behavior can be understood by examining the consequences of behavior. According to their theories, habits form because the repeated behavior produces a consistent and predictable response which is therefore manageable, even if it is negative. In order to provoke behavioral change, then, the consequences of the behavior must change.

One of the criticisms that has been lodged against behavioral theory as a means of explaining change processes, however, is that it focuses only on the external, observable exchanges between people and their environments, and in doing so, fails to consider the cognitive processes that are not as easily observable. In fact, this is one of the primary distinctions between this theory and social cognitive theories of personality. Morris and Todd (1995) summarize the behavioralists’ position in this regard, explaining that “while behaviorists define mental states in terms of stimuli and responses, they d[o] not think mental states were themselves [the] causes of the responses and the effects of the stimuli (p. 80). Thus, the behavioral and social-cognitive theories of change are divergent in that the former does not view contemplation of the problem and thoughts about the need to change and become motivated to pursue a change process as important components of habit reformation. The behaviorists contend that both personality and behavior are shaped by external punishments and rewards, and when the pain or discomfort of the punishment exceeds any gains perceived or received from the negative behavior, the person will be externally provoked to change in order to fulfill the same need in a different and more adaptive manner. Social-cognitive theorists, on the other hand, consider contemplation to be one of the necessary precursors to change, and argue that lasting change will only occur if the individual desires to change, makes a specific plan to do so, and monitors his or her progress and setbacks.

Given human beings’ collective struggle to transform negative habits into healthy and positive ones, there is a wealth of research on the subject of habit-change processes, ranging from studies about smoking and eating habits to exercise practices and pathological behaviors, such as addictive gambling and drug use. A recent study conducted by Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) examined the process of changing three particular lifestyle habits among a study population of 217 patients who had been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. These habits were smoking, diet, and exercise, all of which have been correlated as predictors of heart disease. In particular, Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) were interested in determining whether there were any significant discrepancies between those participants who were classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and suffering from elevated emotional distress and those participants who were financially and emotionally stable. The reason for their interest in this particular subject was that they wanted to test the validity of the widespread belief that socioeconomically and emotionally disadvantaged people have a poor prognosis when diagnosed with cardiovascular disease because they lack the tangible and intangible resources to be able to change their conditions and habits, including the habit of smoking.

The methodology utilized by Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) was a randomized controlled clinical trial that was longitudinal in nature. The researchers measured both the participants’ motivation to change and their actual behavioral changes they also assessed the relative ability of each participant to change their behaviors. The inability to change behaviors was predicted to be correlated to low socioeconomic status, the habit of smoking, and high levels of emotional distress. The researchers reported that the motivation and ability to change habits in the three key areas—smoking, diet, and exercise—were lowest among the smokers and people who exhibited significant emotional distress. Interestingly, however, there were no significant correlations between socioeconomic status and the ability to change. Among those participants who were able to initiate the processes of change, Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) observed that changes in habits were not significant after just six months, but they had improved substantially over time, showing the most progress at the 24-month follow-up period. The most interesting conclusion, however, was that “The mediating effects of motivational factors were [determined to be] insignificant" across the board (Mildestvedt & Meland, 2007, p. 140). In other words, external rewards and consequences were not considered to be sufficient motivators for change in the case of the participants in this study. This finding is significant because it contests behavioral theory. It is also significant because the stakes of bukan changing are obviously high: the failure to contemplate, implement, and maintain changes in the areas of smoking, diet, and exercise can literally signify the difference between life and death for the participants in this study.

Although Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) did not articulate that their intention was to study the process of habit change by applying the frameworks of social-cognitive or behavioral personality theories, their research findings distinguished, at least with respect to the particular population they studied, the differences between the two theoretical frameworks regarding their respective theories about change. The population that the researchers selected is an interesting one relevant to our consideration of the value of these two personality theories because the study participants obviously had a clear reason to want to change. The failure of the participants to develop adaptive habits in the areas of smoking, dietary intake, and exercise practices could contribute to an early and painful death. One might think that there is no external motivator more powerful than that. Yet, the findings of Mildestvedt and Meland (2007) suggest that external motivators are not significant predictors of meaningful change. There is a complex structure of variables that influences whether individuals even have the ability—and not simply the desire—to change.

The implications of these findings suggest that the contemporary criticisms of behavioral theory are valid. Behavioralism oversimplifies human decision-making and behavior, despite the fact that it does contribute valid and valuable theories that can be integrated into our study of personality and behavior. Mildestvedt’s and Meland’s (2007) study acknowledges, as does social-cognitive theory, that there are multiple factors that influence the change process. There is a complex transition that occurs between the stage of thinking about change—even when it is clearly and desperately needed—and the actual processes of change implementation, maintenance, and relapse management. Based on this study, it appears clear that social-cognitive theories of personality are more useful constructs than those of behavioral theory to help understand how change occurs.

Related Articles

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Elder, J.P. (1999). Theories and intervention approaches to health-behavior change in primary care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(4), 275-284.

Mildestvedt, Thomas, & Meland, E. (2007). Examining the “Matthew Effect" on the motivation and ability to make lifestyle changes in 217 heart rehabilitation patients. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35(2), 140-147.

Schwarzer, R. (2001). Social cognitive factors in changing health-related behaviors. Current Directions in Changing Health-Related Behaviors, 10(2), 47-51.

Sheeshka, J.D., Woolcott, D.M., & Mackinnon, N.J. (1993). Social cognitive theory as a

framework to explain intentions to practice healthy eating behaviors. Journal of Applied


Motivation Cycle | Psychology

Motivation Cycle: Motivation cycle is a transition of states within an organism that propels the organism toward the satisfaction of a particular need, where motivation itself is considered a hypothesized state.The psychology of motivation is concerned with the ‘why’ of behavior. Questions such as: why do we eat, drink, and make love? Why do we strive to get ahead? Why do we try new things?” can be answered through the study of motivation. Motivation is a hypothesized state within an organism that propels the organism toward a goal.

Motivation Cycle

Broadly, there are four aspects of motive:

Need:

A need is a state of physical deprivation that causes tension within an organism, which tends to organize the field of organism with respect to certain incentives or goals and to incite activity towards their attainment. When an organism has been deprived of such basic necessities of life as food, water, and sleep, the internal environment is imbalanced and the need develops tissue needs, which are the biochemical requirements of the body. Need is the first condition for goal directed behaviour.

Drive:

Need gives rise to drive. The concept of drive is used to mean that the organism is particularly sensitive to certain stimulation and usually is driven to activity. The activity persists until the need is satisfied or until weakness or death occurs. Therefore, drive, a physiological state, is an original source of energy that activates the human organism. It arouse person to action. It is a strong persistent stimulus that demands an active response. Drive is the result of need.

Incentive:

An incentive is an object, a situation of our activity, which excites, maintains, and directs behaviour. Incentive has capability to satisfy a need. Without an incentive or reinforcer, motivation cannot be fulfilled. It is an object toward which motivated behaviour is directed. It can provide satisfaction of the aroused drive. Food is an incentive to hungry man. Need alone do not produce motivated behaviour and drive alone does not make a selective and rational behaviour. Incentive is necessary.

It channels the drive to specific behaviour. In sum it can be said that need is a physiological or psychological state which gives rise to drive, an energy or force. Drive is a state of heightened tension leading to restless activity and preparatory behaviour. According to HiIgard, an incentive is something in the external environment that satisfies the need and thus reduces the drive through consumatory activity.

Goal/Reward:

The goal of energized activity is to reduce the tension created within the body. Here in the above example consumption of food and reduction of tension is the goal. When goal is achieved the need reduced, body is in balanced condition and tension is reduced. The person is again ready for other goal directed activity.

Motivational cycle, therefore, means that behaviour goes in a sequence. Since the sequence is cyclical and needs are never ending there are more than one motivated behaviour that constantly influence the person to act and react. Many times single motivated behaviour fulfils more than one need .


How does motivation influence attention? It depends on the context

Motivation is a powerful driving force behind goal pursuit in our daily lives. Two opposing motivational states that underlie much of our behavior are approach, the impulse to move towards, and avoidance, the impulse to move away. The type of motivation we feel can have a dramatic impact what we pay attention to, which in turn affects our decisions and actions. For instance, when we experience strong approach or avoidance motivation, we tend to pay attention to small details at the expense of the big picture. In this research, we expanded on the relationship between motivation and attention in two ways. First, we studied not only how motivation changes what we pay attention to, but also how it affects our ability to flexibly switch the target of our attention. For instance, while driving a car, motivation might affect how well we can shift our attention between the car ahead of us and the broader pattern of traffic. Second, we studied the role of the environmental context. In the previous example, perhaps the density of the traffic or the average speed of the cars on the road alters our ability to shift attention. Our general hunch going in was that different kinds of motivation would be beneficial in different contexts.

To study these questions, we had participants repeatedly shift their attention between global (big picture) and local (small detail) features of an image under varying contexts and motivational states. We changed context by altering the ratio of global to local targets, so that on some groups of trials there were more global or local targets, and on others there was an equal number of global and local targets. Motivation was varied by showing participants pictures of delicious versus disgusting things and by having them act out arm positions that are associated with approaching (e.g., pulling) versus avoiding (e.g., pushing). Faster switching between global and local features indicated how well our participants were able to shift their attention. When there were an equal number of global and local targets, avoidance motivation led to faster attention switching. On the other hand, when there were more global targets than local targets, approach motivation led to faster switching.

Our study shows that avoidance motivation may improve shifts in attention when those shifts are frequent or predictable, whereas approach may help responding to rare or unexpected events. This result is important because it demonstrates that, when considering the relationship between motivation and attention, it is also important to consider the context and situation. This finding also has implications for everyday life, because goals can usually be framed in either approach and avoidance terms. For example, driving to work can be motivated either by a desire to avoid being late or to get to an exciting meeting. Motivational framing, therefore, can be used to achieve more flexible or more focused attention depending on the environmental context.


Article Review – “How Motivation Affects Learning and Behaviour” by J.E. Ormrod

Article Review – “How Motivation Affects Learning and Behaviour” by J. E. Ormrod This article reveals six effects of motivation towards Learning and Behaviour. To begin with, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are introduced as two major motivations that drive a person in their actions. When I bumped onto this article, I thought all points in this article are prior knowledge of everybody in education field. Until I found other articles that made my eyes opened and starting to disagree. The contradiction theory of motivation is proposed by A.

Marr in his article, The Phony Controversy . He said that the fact that intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes represent nothing more than metaphorical piece that has nothing to do with neural processes that actually rule motivation. He further added that the intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation controversy is a deception because distinctive intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes simply do not exist. Intrinsic motivation refers to the performance for an activity for its inherent interest and enjoyment other than separable outcome (Saade, 2008).

Saade’s statement coincides with Marr’s opinion that within the last ten years, the neuroscientific analysis of the reward mechanisms in the brain has revealed that an entirely different mechanism underlies reward or reinforcement. More or less, activities which are considered being done under intrinsic motivation influence are actually chosen for self-pleasure. Marr also suggests that these distinguished motivations of intrinsic and extrinsic are related to prediction. Personally, his opinion is simply as follows if an activity can be predicted as pleasurable, only then a person willingly to do it.

Continuing the further, the brain will imagine and perceive how one activity will affect a person and how beneficial it would be. On the other hand, Steven Reiss, a professor of psychology at Ohio State University argues that a diverse range of human motivations can’t be forced into these categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Grabmeier, 2005). Grabmeier further added that Reiss has developed and tested a theory of motivation that states there are 16 basic desires that guide nearly all meaningful behaviour, including power, independence, curiosity, and acceptance. Whether you agree there are 16 desires or not, he said there is ot any way to reduce all of these desires to just two types. Grabmeier’s example of proving uncertainty of intrinsic motivation existence For example, many studies have purportedly shown how people who enjoy doing a specific activity – such as children who enjoy drawing – do that activity less after they are offered rewards. But when the results show the subjects continue the activity even after the rewards are offered, the researchers have argued that this just shows the subjects expect to get a reward and no longer are intrinsically motivated. But sometimes, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be coincidentally in one situation.

For instance, Farris is a Guitar Hero game addict and one day he found out the game is promoted on a fun fair. He played on his best and scored the highest mark because he is naturally likes that game. The second reason is a girl beaten him on that game previously. There Are No Effects without Causes Nevertheless, it is impossible to claim that motivation doesn’t exist while its effects are being explained in detail in the stated article. Effects of motivation as suggested by Ormrod 1. Motivation directs behaviour toward particular goals 2. Motivations leads to increased effort and energy 3.

Motivation increases initiation and persistence in activities 4. Motivation affects cognitive processes 5. Motivation determines which consequences are reinforcing and punishing 6. Motivation often enhances performances. We are jumping into fifth effect which is emphasizing on reinforcement. Reinforcement itself means the process of encouraging or establishing a belief or pattern of behaviour . To be truth, Ormrod’s opinion can be agreed because encouragement to success in study achievement is basically innate in every student. In addition, success is a typical needs and rather important nowadays.

In order to be successful in academic, they have to be attentive in classes, this where motivations in learning simply described. Learning session can be boring as they get older. Thus, motivation is which can trigger study’s passion. This statement is supported by sixth effect of motivation in leaning. Because people are doing action for reasons and motivation is a medium to put reasons into reality. Students give different reasons for their success or failure in various school subjects and these reasons are consistent with their self-concept ability in that domain (Boekaerts, 2002).

In my opinion, students who consider learning session as a pleasurable session can be the most motivated students. Thus they will give out their best performance. This is where extrinsic motivation is logically can be one’s trigger. If by any chance intrinsic motivation is proved not exist, the same question would be for extrinsic motivation. Because other than prediction and desires, we still need a trigger and it seems suit to be called ‘motivation’. Or else, let’s we pick other name and psychological term for it.


What is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

To recap, the basic difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is that the former is based on the enjoyment of the task itself, while the latter is focused on the desired outcome. Early research viewed them as distinct forces, independent of each other. In addition, extrinsic motivation has often been considered as having a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation, known as the overjustification effect.

However, there’s likely more overlap than once thought. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can positively influence each other, in what is known as a “synergistic combination.” You could see this as the sweet spot — an activity that is inherently satisfying, that also offers a reward. Keep in mind, rewards can be tangible, such as a salary or bonus payment, or intangible, such as praise or recognition.

Viewing intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation as complementary forces, if done skillfully and consciously, could enhance productivity more than focusing only on intrinsic motivation. This is particularly effective in the workplace, for leaders or CEOs looking to inspire their team to reach business goals whilst feeling fulfilled in the process.


Pengantar

An important and adaptive feature of the memory system is the ability to forget irrelevant or unwanted information. Forgetting can occur unintentionally, due to decay of a memory trace, but there are also circumstances that necessitate intentional forgetting𠅏or example, to avoid interference with similar or overlapping information, to update incorrect or missing information in memory with new information, or as an emotion regulation strategy for memories that evoke negative affect. To study intentional forgetting in the lab, directed forgetting paradigms indicate to participants that some stimuli are to-be-remembered (TBR) and other stimuli are to-be-forgotten (TBF) via cues presented after each stimulus presentation (MacLeod, 1998). Aging is associated with well-documented increases in unintentional forgetting (Maylor, 1993), but when older adults are directed to intentionally forget information, they often have difficulty doing so compared to younger adults (Zacks et al., 1996 Titz and Verhaeghen, 2010). The cognitive and neural mechanisms responsible for the directed forgetting effect are hotly debated (Anderson and Hanslmayr, 2014 Aguirre et al., 2017), but a prevailing hypothesis concerning older adults’ paradoxical forgetting abilities is that age-related declines in cognitive control lead to reductions in goal-directed memory processes and the inability to inhibit unwanted information which leads to continued encoding of items they have been instructed to forget (Sahakyan et al., 2008 Titz and Verhaeghen, 2010 Gallant et al., 2018). In other words, to intentionally forget, one must engage inhibitory cognitive control and resist goal-irrelevant TBF stimuli, but as we age, the ability to inhibit attention to distracting or unnecessary information declines, thereby leading older adults to remember TBF items to a greater extent than younger adults. Neuroimaging evidence provides additional support for this hypothesis as reduced intentional forgetting in older adults is associated with reduced engagement of frontal lobe inhibitory control regions (Rizio and Dennis, 2014).

While executive function and other cognitive processes are associated with an age-related decline (Salthouse, 2010 Murman, 2015 Salthouse, 2019), affective functioning, such as sensitivity to rewards, is relatively preserved or maintained in healthy aging (Harada et al., 2013 Mather, 2016). In several contexts, older and younger adults show similar activation in the reward network to gain and loss anticipation (Samanez-Larkin et al., 2007 Spaniol et al., 2015 Geddes et al., 2018 Bowen et al., 2020) and gain and loss feedback (Bowen et al., 2019), but valence differences have also been reported in striatal regions that respond robustly to rewarding outcomes compared to loss outcomes (Samanez-Larkin et al., 2007, 2014 Schott et al., 2007 Vink et al., 2015). Memory performance has been shown to be enhanced by high compared to low reward anticipation (Castel et al., 2002 Castel, 2007 Spaniol et al., 2014 Cohen et al., 2016 Bowen et al., 2020), as well as positive feedback (Eppinger et al., 2011 Mather and Schoeke, 2011), in younger as well as older adults.

Reward can enhance older adults’ ability to remember, so the critical question in this set of studies is whether it could also improve directed forgetting. One interpretation of the memory findings reported above is that even in older adults who suffer cognitive deficits, intact reward anticipation increases cognitive control over episodic memory formation. When motivated by a reward cue, cognitive control processes are engaged to successfully remember the high- compared to low-value items to a greater extent (see Cohen et al., 2014 Eich and Castel, 2016, for a discussion of this). Neuroimaging evidence supports this idea that reward motivation increases cognitive control due to projections between the ventral tegmental area of the reward network to the prefrontal cortex during reward processing (for a review, see Ferdinand and Czernochowski, 2018). Since cognitive control is thought to underlie older adults’ reduced ability to intentionally forget, rewards could potentially increase goal-directed remembering dan forgetting. A second interpretation for the motivated memory findings above is that reward motivation enhances processing of high-value compared to low-value stimuli, but this processing is relatively automatic, rather than controlled (e.g., Cohen et al., 2019 Bowen et al., 2020). Neuroimaging provides evidence for this interpretation as reward anticipation boosts activation in the ventral tegmental area and triggers dopaminergic modulation of hippocampal consolidation processes. Presenting reward cues during stimulus presentation (i.e., before remember/forget instructions) may make forgetting even more difficult due to the relatively automatic cascade of processes within and between the ventral tegmental area and hippocampus during reward anticipation (e.g., Adcock et al., 2006 Bowen et al., 2020). Furthermore, reward anticipation has been shown to increase semantic processing of word stimuli—which are typically employed as stimuli in directed forgetting paradigms—in particular when a high reward is at stake. This results in elaborative encoding and increased memory for high- compared to low-value information (Cohen et al., 2016).

Considering reported age-related impairments in directed forgetting (Titz and Verhaeghen, 2010), it is important to determine whether older adults’ ability to intentionally forget could be improved by extrinsic motivation via monetary reward, like it has been shown to increase remembering of high-compared to low-value information. A few prior studies have demonstrated that reward motivation does influence the directed forgetting effect in younger adults. In an effort to empirically test the possibility that participants’ lack of motivation to search and recover TBF items may actually be driving the directed forgetting effect, Macleod (1999) offered participants a reward (ɀ.50) for any additional TBF words they could recall after an initial recall test for all TBR and TBF items. Despite this added motivation, participants reported very few additional TBF words during the second recall task, suggesting that the directed forgetting effect may not be driven by differential withholding of recovered TBF words. Macleod (1999) implemented reward motivation during the retrieval phase, so it is unclear from these results whether reward anticipation could influence cognitive control processes engaged during the encoding phase of the directed forgetting task. To answer this question, Friedman and Castel (2011) used a directed forgetting task where remember and forget cues were replaced with numerical values and participants were told to try and maximize their points with the following instructions: Words followed by +5, if recalled, would result in a gain of 5 points, but words followed by 𢄥, if recalled, would result in a loss of 5 points, effectively making these words TBR and TBF, respectively. The authors found a stronger directed forgetting effect in the motivation block compared to a baseline block with no motivation manipulation. Finally, in a recent study, instead of replacing remember/forget cues with reward values, Ren et al. (2018) orthogonalized remembering/forgetting and reward/loss, by presenting TBR and TRF cues along with reward and loss cues, after presentation of each stimulus during encoding. The reward cues indicated how many points would be rewarded for successful remembering and forgetting on the subsequent recognition task as well as how many points would be lost for unsuccessful remembering and forgetting. They found that words associated with rewards led to a typical directed forgetting effect with better memory for TBR items compared to TBF items, but the threat of losses made it difficult for participants to forget, and there was no significant difference in recognition between TBR and TBF words.

The Current Studies

The goal of the current set of studies was to examine the effect of reward anticipation on age differences in directed forgetting in healthy younger and older adults. Hypotheses and a power analysis were preregistered on the Open Science Framework 1 . In Experiment 1, we wanted to establish directed forgetting effects in an online sample of younger and older adults recruited from CloudResearch/Turk Prime (Litman et al., 2017). This first study was done using a typical item-method directed forgetting task with neutral words without any motivational incentives. Based on prior research, we expected an age-related decline in the overall directed forgetting effect (i.e., the difference between memory for TBR vs. TBF words). In Experiment 2, we tested the effect of high-and low-value motivational incentives (monetary rewards) on directed forgetting in younger and older adults. Based on research described above, we suspected that high rewards would increase memory for TBR items compared to low or no reward in all participants. Compared to younger adults, we predicted that high rewards would also reduce the directed forgetting effect compared to a baseline condition of no reward in older adults, making TBF words even harder to forget. In Experiment 3, we investigated participant strategy during the recognition task, specifically whether they intentionally withheld their memory of TBF words in order to receive a reward. Experiment 3 followed the same procedure as Experiment 2, but after the recognition task, participants were offered an additional reward for each TBF word that they could freely recall to determine if they were intentionally withholding their memory for TBF words. While we did not have age-related hypotheses about this third experiment, given Macleod’s (1999) findings, we hypothesized that participants would freely recall very few TBF items, which would be indicative of a cognitive strategy employed during encoding to modulate remembering and forgetting abilities, rather than a motivational strategy on the part of the participant to increase earnings. Finally, Experiment 4 followed the same procedures as Experiment 3 with the exception that participants were asked multiple choice questions during instructions to ensure that they understood the reward contingencies. We expected the findings from Experiment 3 would replicate, indicating the effects were reliable.


Tonton videonya: MEMBACA KEPRIBADIAN ORANG LAIN DARI 14 TANDA INI. CARA MEMBACA KARAKTER ORANG LAIN (Agustus 2022).