MODULE 4

Module 4: Content theories of Motivation

Unit 1: Hierarchy of motives: Maslow’s, ERG theory Alderfer.
Unit 2: Two factor theory: Herzberg , Sensation seeking: Zackerman
Unit 3: Self worth theory: Covington, achievement motivation : Atkinson.
Unit 4: Arousal theory: Yerkes-Dodson law.
Unit 5: Discussion / assignments- not for examinations- contribution motivational theories to
organizational and sports psychology.

Unit 1: Hierarchy of motives: Maslow’s, ERG theory Alderfer

According to Petri (1996), “Motivation is the process by which activities are started,
directed and continued so that physical or psychological needs or wants are met”. In other
words, motivation is the internal process that activate, guide and maintain behaviour over
time.

The two main types of motivation are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic
motivation involve motivation that come from within the individual. Extrinsic motivation
involve motivation that arises from external factors. Broadly, apart from intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, there are two types of motivation as illustrated below;

Biological motives include our motivation to acquire food, water, sex etc. Learned
motives are also called social motives. They are called social because they are learned in
social groups, especially in the family as children grow up, and because they usually involve
other people. One of the major learned motive is the achievement motivation.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Motives

There are various theories on motivation, nevertheless the most popular among them
is Maslow’s hierarchy of motives or Maslow’s needs hierarchy. This theory was proposed by
Abraham Maslow (1970). Maslow (1943) argued that any comprehensive theory of human
motivation must take into account the individual as a whole. For example, sexual behavior
may serve physiological as well as psychological needs of belongingness and esteem. He held
that we must seek to understand the ultimate goals of behavior rather than the superficial or
apparent goals, because the apparent goal for any observed behavior may be quite different
from the ultimate goal.

Like Rogers, Maslow also regarded the striving for perfection or self-actualization as
the ultimate purpose of behavior. According to Maslow, human motivation can best be
studied by observing human rather than animal behavior. His observations led him to the
conclusion that human needs can be understood in terms of a hierarchy of needs. He
regarded the satisfaction of needs on the hierarchy in a probabilistic manner. If a lower need
is being satisfied most of the time (perhaps 85%), that need will have little influence on
behavior, while other higher needs that are less satisfied will have a larger influence on
behavior. Needs lower on the hierarchy are prepotent (stronger) and must be satisfied before
needs higher on the hierarchy will be triggered.

The various hierarchy of needs are elaborately discussed below.

i) Physiological Need
It is the lowest level of need in the hierarchy. It includes survival and basic need for
food, water, oxygen, sleep, sex etc. If needs such as hunger or thirst are not adequately being
met, the needs above them on the hierarchy are pushed into the background in terms of
controlling behavior. Maslow felt that physiological needs are adequately met for most
people in our society. When these needs are met, the next need on the hierarchy emerges as a
dominant force in controlling and directing behavior.

ii) Safety Need

These needs represent a need for safety or security in our environment. Like the
physiological needs, safety needs are triggered primarily in emergency situations. Higher
needs become unimportant when life is endangered, and then behavior reflects attempts to
remain secure. Maslow felt that safety needs can also be seen in people’s preference for
familiar surroundings, secure jobs, savings accounts, and insurance. Safety needs are most
evident in young children.

iii) Love and Belongingness Need

This is also known as social need. When safety needs have been adequately met, they
become unimportant in the direction of behavior, and the love or belongingness needs
emerge. The love needs are not equivalent to sexual needs (which are physiological), though
sexual intimacy can serve to satisfy our need to belong. The love needs require both the
receiving and giving of love—love from another and someone to love. We may gain a sense
of belonging in a number of ways. Marriage, a job, or admission to a select group such as a
fraternity, sorority, or civic group can serve this need. According to Maslow, thwarting of the
love needs leads to behavioral maladjustment and pathology and is the most common basis
for behavioral problems in our society.

iv) Esteem Need

If the love needs have been adequately met, they too slip into the background in
relation to guiding behavior, and the esteem needs become dominant. These are needs for
a positive, high evaluation of self. This evaluation can be broken down into two
subcategories─
 The need for self-esteem motivates the individual to strive for achievement, strength,
confidence, independence, and freedom. Appears highly similar to Rogers’s concept of
positive regard. The related need of esteem from others involves a desire for reputation,
status, recognition, appreciation by others of our abilities, and a feeling of importance. When
the esteem needs are satisfied, we have feelings of self-confidence and self-worth and see
ourselves as having a purpose in the world. When these needs are frustrated, maladjustment
can occur, typified by feelings of inferiority, weakness, and, helplessness. Lack of esteem
leads the individual to feel inconsequential and to have little self-worth.

The first four steps on Maslow’s hierarchy constitute the needs that must be satisfied
before reaching the final level, the level of self-actualization. Maslow considered these needs
to result from deficiencies in the person’s life; that is, behaviors related to the first four
categories are motivated by a deprivation of those things necessary for full development.
Behaviors generated in attempts to fill these needs are therefore said to be activated by
deprivation motivation (D-motivation). i.e., the deficiency needs are triggered by deprivation
motivation. Maslow also believed that for some individuals chronically deprived at the
physiological level, the higher needs might never emerge. For these people it is sufficient
simply to get enough to eat. On the other hand, Maslow believed that people who have
always had their basic needs satisfied will be less influenced by these needs later if the needs
are suddenly no longer being met.

Each level of the hierarchy does not have to be perfectly satisfied. As lower needs are
partly met, higher needs partly emerge. As the lower needs become more and more satisfied,
the higher needs become more and more prominent in the control of behavior. Finally,
Maslow suggested that most people are unaware of the need hierarchy; their needs are mostly
unconscious.

v) Self- actualisation Need

The self-actualized individual has satisfied all the deprivation needs of the first four levels
of the hierarchy. The behavior of the self-actualized person is, as a result, motivated by a new
set of needs, which Maslow termed the being needs (B-motivation, or metamotivation).
These B-motives are values such as truth, honesty, beauty, and goodness, and they provide
meaning to the life of the self-actualized individual. Self-actualized individuals are no longer
motivated by deficiencies but are motivated to grow and become all that they are capable of
becoming.

Self-actualization constantly stimulates people to test their abilities and expand their
horizons. Maslow suggested that the process of growth leading to self-actualization takes
considerable time and that most self-actualizing persons are 60 or more years old. Maslow
also believed that few people in our society reach self-actualization, estimating that fewer
than 1% of the population could be considered self–actualized (Goble, 1970). In his later
writing, Maslow (1971) came to the conclusion that there are actually two types of self-
actualizing people, differentiated in regard to peak experiences.

Self-actualizers who experience peak experiences often are called transcenders. Self-
actualizers who rarely or do not experience peak experiences are called non-transcenders. A
peak experience is a short but intense feeling of awe or ecstasy often accompanied by a sense
of fulfillment, insight, and oneness with something larger than one’s self.

Criticisms

 Lack of replicability.

Many of the living individuals he studied preferred to remain anonymous, so other

psychologists could not check the accuracy of Maslow’s perceptions of these people. Also,
the historical figures were dead, requiring reliance on written accounts, which are often self-
serving.

 Difficulty in generalization
 Maslow’s theory has sometimes been criticized as elitist. People confined by poor
education, dead-end jobs, or societal expectations are unlikely to become self-actualized
persons. The elite seem to have a distinct advantage in obtaining self-actualization.

 Motivation toward growth may not be as general as Maslow proposed.

So many people fail to become self-actualized. Perhaps the need to become all that one
can become is idiosyncratic to some persons rather than present in all of us. Moreover, the
idea that needs arise and are satisfied in a particular order has not been confirmed.

 Lack of evidence and ambiguity of concepts

The theory has little scientific support because he developed his theory based on his
personal observations of people rather than any empirically gathered observations or
research.

 Culture bias

Maslow's work was also based on his studies of Americans so it does not always hold true
for other cultures. Some results suggest that people sometimes seek to satisfy higher- order
needs even when lower order needs in the hierarchy have not been met.

REVISED HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

Kenrick et. al., (2010) have proposed a reformulated hierarchical structure of needs
that retains much of Maslow’s original model. In addition to Maslow’s five needs, Kenrick
et. al., have identified three other needs. The most important aspect of Kenrick et al., theory
of hierarchy of needs is the omission of the self-actualization needs. Kenrick et al. do not
dismiss this motive entirely, but they do argue that it is not a fundamental human need.
Rather, they believe that it is part of other needs such as status/esteem and, ultimately, the
needs that govern mating.
 The three mating needs are at the top of the hierarchy because successful propagation
of one’s genes is the ultimate goal. Kenrick et al. invoke their three levels of analysis to
elaborate on this point. They argue that evolution has provided all animals with a
developmental trajectory that best fits their day to- day environment and maximizes
reproductive success. For humans, this means that as infants physiological and safety needs
are paramount. We must satisfy them before we move up the hierarchy, but these basic needs
can still motivate behavior throughout the life span. In early childhood, affiliation needs
become more dominant, followed by a motive to gain status/esteem in the eyes of the people
with whom we have become affiliated. When we reach adolescence, our evolutionary history
dictates that sexual needs become strong motivators of behavior. This urge to find a mate or
mates continues into adulthood. Once a suitable mate has been found the motive to retain him
or her becomes prominent and both positive (e.g., emotional bonding) and negative (e.g.,
jealousy) factors can help us satisfy this need. Individuals who have met each of the first six
needs are in the best position to become parents and to nurture their offspring, and hence their
genes, through the same process.
Kenrick and colleagues realize that this model does not fully account for the large
differences both between and within the sexes in terms of how individuals choose to navigate
these stages. Kenrick et al. argue that the model can serve as a useful tool in guiding research
on many positive aspects of human behavior including topics such as emotional bonding,
caregiving, courtship, affiliation, and the development of competence.
CONCLUSION
Human motives may exist in a hierarchy. More basic needs must be satisfied before
moving on to ones that are less linked to biological needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of motives
provide a pyramid of needs that require to be satisfied for an individual to attain self-
actualisation. This theory has been revised by Kenrick et al. (2010) to provide further
additions to the needs hierarchy.

ERG Theory by Clayton Alderfer (1969)

E.R.G. theory assumes that a human being has three core needs that he strives to
meet. They include obtaining his material existence needs, maintaining his interpersonal
relatedness with significant other people, and seeking opportunities for his unique personal
development and growth, These needs provide the basic elements in motivation. Often people
express their wants in the form of complex goals which may include mixtures of the basic
needs. One such "compound" need would be for a promotion, where as a result of the
promotion the person would obtain more material rewards in the form of pay, a different
constellation of interpersonal relationships, and new opportunities to develop and use his
talent. Clayton P. Alderfer's ERG theory from 1969 condenses Maslow's five human needs
into three categories:
Existence, Relatedness and Growth.
1. Existence Needs:
Include all material and physiological desires (e.g., food, water, air, clothing, safety,
physical love and affection). Derived from Maslow's first two levels. Existence needs include
all the various forms of material and physiological desires. Hunger and thirst represent
deficiencies in existence needs. Pay, fringe benefits, and working conditions are other types
of existence needs. One of the basic characteristics of existence needs is that they can be
divided among people in such a way that one person's gain is another's loss when resources
are limited. If two people are hungry, for example, the food eaten by one is not available to
the other. When a salary decision is made that provides one person or group of people with
more pay, it eliminates the possibility of some other person or group getting extra money.
This property of existence needs frequently means that a person's (or group's) satisfaction,
beyond a bare minimum depends upon the comparison of what he gets with what others get
in the same situation.
2. Relatedness Needs:
Encompass social and external esteem; relationships with significant others like
family, friends, co-workers and employers . This also means to be recognized and feel secure
as part of a group or family. Derived from Maslow's third and fourth levels. Relatedness
needs include all the needs which involve relationships with significant other people. Family
members are usually significant others, as are superiors, coworkers, subordinates, friends, and
enemies. One of the basic characteristics of relatedness needs is that their satisfaction
depends on a process of sharing or mutuality. People are assumed to satisfy relatedness needs
by mutually sharing their thoughts and feelings. This process markedly distinguishes
relatedness needs from existence needs because the process of satisfaction for existence needs
prohibits mutuality.
The exchange of acceptance, confirmation, understanding, and influence are elements
of the relatedness process. It is not necessary for the formal power between two people to be
equal, or nearly so, for relatedness need satisfaction to be possible. The essential conditions
involve the willingness of both (or all) persons to share their thoughts and feelings as fully as
possible while trying to enable the other(s) to do the same thing. Argyris (1962) has termed
this quality of a relationship authentic. Furthermore, the outcome in satisfying relatedness
needs need not always be a positive affectual state for both or either person. The exchange or
expression of anger and hostility is a very important par~ of meaningful interpersonal
relationships, lust as is the expression of warmth and closeness. Thus, the opposite of
relatedness satisfaction is not necessarily anger, but it is a sense of distance or lack of
connectedness.
3. Growth Needs:
Internal esteem and self actualization; these impel a person to make creative or
productive effects on himself and the environment (e.g., to progress toward one's ideal self).
Derived from Maslow's fourth and fifth levels. This includes desires to be creative and
productive, and to complete meaningful tasks. Growth needs include all the needs which
involve a person making creative or productive effects on himself and the environment.
Satisfaction of growth needs comes from a person engaging problems which call upon him to
utilize his capacities fully and may include requiring him to develop additional capacities. A
person experiences a greater sense of wholeness and fullness as a human being by satisfying
growth needs. Thus satisfaction of growth needs depends on a person finding the
opportunities to be what he is most fully and to become what he can.
Even though the priority of these needs differ from person to person, Alderfer's ERG
theory prioritises in terms of the categories' concreteness. Existence needs are the most
concrete, and easiest to verify. Relatedness needs are less concrete than existence needs,
which depend on a relationship between two or more people. Finally, growth needs are the
least concrete in that their specific objectives depend on the uniqueness of each person.
Relationships between Alderfer's ERG theory concepts
There are three relationships among the different categories in Alderfer's ERG theory:
1. Satisfaction-progression:
Moving up to higher-level needs based on satisfied needs. With Maslow,
satisfactionprogression plays an important part. Individuals move up the need hierarchy as a
result of satisfying lower order needs. In Alderfer's ERG theory, this isn't necessarily so. The
progression upward from relatedness satisfaction to growth desires does not presume the
satisfaction of a person's existence needs.
2. Frustration-regression:
If a higher level need remains unfulfilled, a person may regress to lower level needs
that appear easier to satisfy. Frustration-regression suggests that an already satisfied need can
become active when a higher need cannot be satisfied. Thus, if a person is continually
frustrated in his/her attempts to satisfy growth, relatedness needs can resurface as key
motivators.
3. Satisfaction-strengthening:
Iteratively strengthening a current level of satisfied needs. Satisfaction-strengthening
indicates that an already satisfied need can maintain satisfaction or strengthen lower level
needs iteratively when it fails to gratify high-level needs. The sense in which frustration
regression is employed in E.R.G. theory concerns the tendency of persons to desire more
concrete ends as a consequence of being unable to obtain more differentiated, less concrete
ends.
Thus a person is thought to desire existence needs when relatedness needs are not
satisfied because he is using them as an easier, more concrete way of establishing his
connectedness with other people. He seeks relatedness needs when he is unsatisfied with his
growth because he is searching for opportunities for more clarity and support in the quest to
stretch, develop, and expand himself.
Differences between ERG theory and Maslow's model
Alderfer's ERG motivation theory differs from Maslow's theory in three ways:
1. A lower level need does not have to be gratified (i.e., a person may satisfy a need at hand,
whether or not a previous need has been satisfied);
2. If a relatively more significant need is not gratified, the desire to gratify a lesser need will
be increased (i.e., the frustration in meeting high-order needs might lead a person to regress
to a more concrete need category);
3. Alderfer's ERG theory allows the order of the needs to differ for different people (e.g., it
accounts for the "starving artist" who may place growth needs above existence ones).
Applicability:
On a work level, this means that managers must recognize his employees' multiple
simultaneous needs. In Alderfer's ERG model, focusing exclusively on one need at a time
will not motivate your people. The frustration-regression principle impacts workplace
motivation. For example, if growth opportunities are not provided to employees, they may
regress to relatedness needs, and socialize more with co-workers. If you can recognize these
conditions early, steps can be taken to satisfy the frustrated needs until the employee is able
to pursue growth again.
Other implications:
 Financial incentives may satisfy the need for growth, and for recognition by others.
As you can see, in this theory financial incentives can only fulfill human needs indirectly,
through their perceived value and effect on other people. So even though you may provide
financial incentives, if your people's other needs aren't being met, according to Alderfer's
ERG theory your workers will not be motivated.

Unit 2: Two factor theory: Herzberg , Sensation seeking: Zackerman

Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory

Influenced greatly by the human relations school of thought, Frederick Herzberg

developed a theory of motivation that highlighted the role of job satisfaction in determining
worker motivation (we will discuss job satisfaction in great depth in Chapter 9, but we are
here looking at job satisfaction as one element in the motivation “equation”) (Herzberg, 1966;
Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). He stated that the traditional, single-dimension
approach to job satisfaction, with its continuum ends ranging from job dissatisfaction to job
satisfaction, is wrong, and that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are actually two
separate and independent dimensions. Herzberg arrived at these conclusions, called the two-
factor theory, after analyzing the survey responses of many white-collar, professional
workers who were asked to describe what made them feel especially good or bad about their
jobs. What he found was that the factors clustered into one of two categories. Certain factors,
when present, seemed to cause job satisfaction, and Herzberg labeled them motivators. Other
factors, when absent, tended to cause job dissatisfaction, and he called them hygienes.
Motivators are factors related to job content; they are inherent in the work itself. The type of
work, the level of responsibility associated with the job, and the chances for recognition,
advancement, and personal achievement are all motivators. Hygienes are related to the
context in which people perform their jobs. Common hygienes include benefits, working
conditions (including both physical and social conditions), type of supervision, base salary,
and company policies.

To illustrate Herzberg’s concepts of hygienes and motivators, consider the jobs of

high school teacher and paramedic. Neither job is particularly well paid, and the working
conditions of the paramedic, with odd hours out in the field working under high pressure to
save lives, are not too appealing. In other words, the hygienes in the two jobs are low to
moderate. And, as you might expect with reduced hygienes, teachers and paramedics might
often voice their dissatisfaction over low pay and poor working conditions. However, the
positions of teacher and paramedic have high levels of responsibility, shaping young minds
and saving lives, respectively. Moreover, both teachers and paramedics consider themselves
to be professionals, doing work that has value to society. These are the motivators that,
according to Herzberg, will lead to job satisfaction and keep levels of motivation high for
people in these professions.

Herzberg’s theory indicates that if managers are to keep workers happy and
motivated, two things must be done. First, to eliminate job dissatisfaction, workers must be
provided with the basic hygiene factors. That is, they must be compensated appropriately,
treated well, and provided with job security. However, furnishing these hygienes will only
prevent dissatisfaction; it will not necessarily motivate workers. To get workers to put greater
effort and energy into their jobs, motivators must be present. The work must be important,
giving the workers a sense of responsibility, and should provide chances for recognition and
upward mobility.

Herzberg classified these job factors into two categories-

a. Hygiene factors- Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for
existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for
long-term. But if these factors are absent / if these factors are non-existant at
workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, hygiene factors are those
factors which when adequate/reasonable in a job, pacify the employees and do not
make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to work. Hygiene factors are also
called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid
dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment/scenario. The hygiene
factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and
expected to be fulfilled.

b. Motivational factors- According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be regarded

as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are
inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance.
These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job.
Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. The motivators symbolized the
psychological needs that were perceived as an additional benefit.
The Four States

In a general sense, there are four states an organization or team can find themselves in when
it comes to Two Factor Theory.

1. High Hygiene and High Motivation

This is the ideal situation and the one which every manager should strive for. Here, all
employees are motivated and have very few grievances.

2. High Hygiene and Low Motivation

In this situation, employees have few grievances but they are not highly motivated. An
example of this situation is where pay and working conditions are competitive but the work
isn’t very interesting. Employees are simply there to collect their salary.

3. Low Hygiene and High Motivation

In this situation, employees are highly motivated but they have a lot of grievances. A typical
example of this situation is where the work is exciting and really interesting but the pay and
conditions are behind competitors in the same industry.

4. Low Hygiene and Low Motivation

This is obviously a bad situation for an organization or team to find itself in. Here, employees
aren’t motivated and the hygiene factors are not up to scratch.

There is a two-step process to use the Two Factor Theory model to increase the motivation of
your team.

1. Eliminate job hygiene stressors.

2. Boost job satisfaction.

1. Eliminate Job Hygiene Stressors

 The first step to enhancing the motivation of your team is to ensure that the hygiene
factors are not causing dissatisfaction.

Each person will examine hygiene factors through their own unique frame of
reference. Because of this, it’s important to work with each member of your team to
understand their specific perspective.

Some common steps to remove hygiene stressors are:

 Rectify petty and bureaucratic company policies.

 Ensure each team member feels supported without feeling micromanaged. You can do
this by using servant leadership or a democratic leadership style.
 Ensure the day to day working culture is supportive. No bullying. No cliques. Everyone
treated with equal respect.

 Ensure that salaries are competitive within the industry. Ensure there are no major salary
disparities between employees doing similar jobs.

 To increase job satisfaction and status, aim to construct jobs in such a way that each team
member finds their job meaningful.

2. Boost Job Satisfaction

Once you have removed hygiene stressors, the next step is to boost the job satisfaction
of each team member. We can do this by improving the actual content of the job itself. Again,
a unique approach for each employee will be required.

Three techniques which can be used to achieve this are:

a. Job Enrichment

Job enrichment means enriching a team member’s job by giving them more challenging or
complex tasks to perform. These more complex tasks should make the job more interesting.
b. Job Enlargement

Job enlargement means giving a team member a greater variety of tasks to perform. This
variety can also make a job more interesting.

Note that with job enlargement the variety of tasks is increased, but not the difficulty of those
tasks. If difficulty increased then that would-be job enrichment.

c. Employee Empowerment

Employee empowerment means deligating increasing responsibility to each team member.

This can be done by slowly increasing the amount of responsibility you delegate to an
employee.

Limitations of the Theory

Some common criticisms of Herzberg’s Motivation Theory include:

 The theory only applies to white collar workers.

 It doesn’t take an individuals situation or perception into consideration. We have

attempted to address this above by applying the theory at an individual level.

 The theory focuses on improving employee satisfaction. That doesn’t necessarily translate
into increased productivity.

 There is no objective way to measure employee satisfaction within the theory.There also
have been difficulties in clearly distinguishing hygienes and motivators. For example,
salary, which should be a hygiene because it is external to the work itself, may sometimes
act as a motivator because pay can be used to recognize outstanding employees and
indicate an individual’s status in the organization

 Two Factor Theory is subject to bias. For example, when an employee is satisfied they
will give themselves credit for that satisfaction. Conversely, when they are dissatisfied
they will blame external factors.
Implications of Two-Factor Theory

The Two-Factor theory implies that the managers must stress upon guaranteeing the adequacy of
the hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction. Also, the managers must make sure that the
work is stimulating and rewarding so that the employees are motivated to work and perform harder
and better. This theory emphasizes upon job-enrichment so as to motivate the employees. The job
must utilize the employee’s skills and competencies to the maximum. Focusing on the motivational
factors can improve work-quality.

Summary

 Herzberg’s Motivation Theory model, or Two Factor Theory, provides two factors
that affect motivation in the workplace.
 These factors are hygiene factors and motivating factors. Hygiene factors will cause
an employee to work less if not present. Motivating factors will encourage an
employee to work harder if present.
 To use the theory within your team, start by getting any hygiene issues resolved. Once
you have done this, you can boost motivation by putting in place as many motivating
factors as practical.
 The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables.
 Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity. But the
research conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored productivity.
 The theory’s reliability is uncertain. Analysis has to be made by the raters. The raters
may spoil the findings by analyzing same response in different manner.
 No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his job
acceptable despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job.
 The two factor theory is not free from bias as it is based on the natural reaction of
employees when they are enquired the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at
work. They will blame dissatisfaction on the external factors such as salary structure,
company policies and peer relationship. Also, the employees will give credit to
themselves for the satisfaction factor at work.
 The theory ignores blue-collar workers. Despite these limitations, Herzberg’s Two-
Factor theory is acceptable broadly.
Sensation Seeking by Marvin Zackerman

Sensation seeking is a personality trait defined by the degree to which an individual

seeks novel and highly stimulating activities and experiences. People who are high in
sensation seeking are attracted to the unknown and as a result consistently seek the new,
varied, and unpredictable

Zuckerman describes sensation seeking as a desire for “varied, novel, complex, and
intense sensations and experience, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and
financial risks for the sake of such experience”

To measure sensation seeking, constructed the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), a 40-item
paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Using the method of factor analysis, Zuckerman (1983)
identified 4 components of sensation seeking.

 Thrill and adventure seeking: a desire to engage in physical activities involving speed,
danger, novelty, and defiance of gravity such as parachuting, scuba diving, or bungee
jumping.
 Experience seeking: the search for novel experiences through travel, music, art, or a
nonconformist lifestyle with similarly inclined persons. . It also incorporates social
nonconformity, particularly associated with belonging to groups on the fringes of
conventional society.
 Disinhibition: the need to seek release in uninhibited social activities. This factor
covers sensation seeking that focuses on social activities, such as parties, drinking,
illegal drugs, and sex.
 Boredom susceptibility: an aversion to repetitive experiences, routine work, and
predictable people, and a reaction of restless discontent when exposed to such
situations.

He later proposed good and bad kinds of sensation seeking.

The so-called good type, or non-impulsive socialized sensation seeking, involves the
thrill and adventure-seeking component. The bad kind, impulsive unsocialized sensation
seeking, consists of high scores on the disinhibition, experience seeking, and boredom
susceptibility components as well as high scores on Eysenck’s psychoticism scale
 Specifically, Zuckerman’s basic proposition is that sensation seeking is based on
individual differences in the optimal level of sensation caused by biological nervous-system
differences. High SS are individuals who have relatively low-level nervous system activation
and therefore seek arousal from their external environment by looking for novel stimuli and
engaging in varied experiences. In contrast, individuals who are low in SS have a naturally
higher level of internal activation and thus do not tend to seek sensation from external
sources. Zuckerman posits that sensation seeking is genetically influenced because it is
evolutionary adaptive

Zuckerman has generated an impressive amount of research on sensation seeking.

Research supports Zuckerman’s biologically based theory and has revealed that sensation
seeking plays an important role in many social behaviours

Characterstics of sensation seeking

Zuckerman and his associates found that sensation seeking varies as a function of age.
Younger people are more inclined to seek adventure, risk, and novel experiences than are
older people. Studies of high school and college students in the United States and in Canada
found that those who scored high in sensation seeking were far more likely to engage in
various kinds of reckless behaviours as well as uncontrolled gambling than were those who
scored low.

Men scored higher on thrill and adventure seeking, disinhibition, and boredom
susceptibility. Women scored higher on experience seeking.

Researchers also found significant racial and cultural differences. Asians scored lower
on the SSS than did people in Western countries.No significant differences were reported as a
function of educational level

Behavioural Differences

High SS -mountain climbing, hang gliding, auto racing, skiing, scuba diving, and
parasailing, whereas those low in SS generally do not, the behavioral differences are not
always so dramatic

Some high SS do prefer a variety of activities but not necessarily dangerous ones.
These people may opt for encounter groups, meditation training, and other novel experiences.
Once the initial excitement has subsided, however, high sensation seekers usually discontinue
the activities because they no longer provide the optimal level of stimulation.

Research showed that high sensation seekers were more likely than low sensation
seekers to experiment with illicit drugs. Research conducted with several large groups
confirmed the relationship between high SSS scores and drug, alcohol, and marijuana use, as
well as the behaviors of drug selling and shoplifting.

High sensation seekers -smoking cigarettes, drink alcohol, drive fast, have more car
accidents The need for sensation seeking manifests itself in the desire for novel and
sometimes dangerous activities such as bungee jumping and convictions for reckless or
drunken driving, and engage in frequent sex also risky sexual behaviour. Skydivers, fire
fighters, riot-control police officers, and race-car drivers scored higher on the SSS than did
groups not engaged in these activities.

Not all studies, however, have found sensation seeking to be a strong predictor of
such behaviours, likely because research also indicates that the environment and experiences
play important roles in the expression of behaviours such as aggression.

Research on male college undergraduate students in Israel found that high sensation
seekers were more likely than low sensation seekers to participate in risky sports and to
volunteer for army combat units.

SS behave differently between high and low SS individuals. high sensation seekers
are more likely to cross a street on foot against a stoplight also show a preference for so-
called arousing or hot colors such as red and orange rather than pastels such as light
blue .High SS had tattoos and body piercings than did low SS.High SS movies far more often
than did low.

High SS- obsessed with computer games and Internet use ,use their workplace
computers for personal reasons such as sending emails, playing computer games, and viewing
Web sites with sexual content .

Low-level employees in the United States found that high sensation seekers scored
lower on job performance than did low sensation seekers.
 High sensation seekers were also less likely to establish social relationships at work or
to try to obtain information from co-workers or supervisors. The researchers suggested that
such lower level jobs might not be sufficiently stimulating for high sensation seekers.

High sensation seekers preferred greater complexity in visual stimulation, whereas

low sensation seekers preferred stability, simplicity, and symmetry. High sensation seekers
can focus their attention better than low sensation seekers

Optimal arousal theory

This suggested that the increase of cortical arousal was the motive behind all types of
stimulus seeking activity .It was assumed that the Optimal Level of Arousal (OLA) of HSS is
greater than that of LSS, and that HSS function best at a high level of arousal. According to
researchers, every person tries to reach an optimal level of arousal from the environment. Too
little stimulation causes a person to be bored while too much stimulation causes anxiety
which would lead to sensation seeking. Other researchers furthered this theory by looking at
how the challenge level of the stimulus and the skill level of the person can affect one's
mental state.

Zuckerman and his colleagues found that high and low sensation seekers showed
different physiological responses to stimuli. High sensation seekers demonstrated stronger or
more highly aroused physiological responses and higher tolerance threshold for pain, loud
noise, and other stressful stimuli (Zuckerman, 1990). Because high sensation seekers are
better able to tolerate increases in arousal, Zuckerman suggested that they should cope better
with stress than can low sensation seekers, who have a lower tolerance for arousal. High
sensation seekers preferred greater complexity in visual stimulation, whereas low sensation
seekers preferred stability, simplicity, and symmetry. High sensation seekers can focus their
attention better than low sensation seekers.

Risk taking

Risks related to sensation seeking may be physical, social, financial or legal. HSS are
not attracted to these risks but they see sensations and experiences as being worth these risks,
while LSS do not. Therefore, it would be most appropriate to label HSS as "risk accepting"
rather than "risk-taking".
 Sensation seeking is a primary factor of a risk-taking personality negative end of the
continuum are likely to engage in criminal activities or self-destructive behaviours, including
drug use, promiscuity, and suicide attempts. Sensation seekers at the positive end of the
continuum may be fire fighters or emergency responders and those in the middle who are
neither prosocial nor antisocial may be sensation seekers participating in extreme sports.

Sensation seeking spectrum can be able to start applying this knowledge to various
aspects of your life including:

 vocational preferences and job satisfaction

 relationships
 eating habits and food preferences
 media and art preferences
 humour
 social attitudes.

Unit 3: Self worth theory: Covington, achievement motivation : Atkinson.

Self worth theory: Covington (1976)

• The self-worth theory of achievement motivation (Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington,
1984) assumes that the highest human priority is the search for selfacceptance and that
“one’s worth often comes to depend on the ability to achieve competitively” (Covington,
1998, p. 78):

• In our society there is a pervasive tendency to equate accomplishment with human value—
put simply, individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their achievements. Because of
this, it is understandable that students often confuse ability with worth…. In essence, then,
self-worth theory holds that, psychologically speaking, school achievement is best understood
in terms of maintaining a positive self-image of one’s ability, particularly when risking
competitive failure. (Covington, 1998, p. 78).

• From Covington’s explanation of the interplay between human value and accomplishment
we gain the perspective that two factors, achievement and ability, dominate as the ultimate
value in the minds of many school children, and that this perspective likely carries into
adulthood. The self-worth model emphasizes feelings of worthlessness that arise from “the
disclosure of incompetency” (Covington, 1984, p. 8). The four main elements of this model
are (a) ability, (b) effort, (c) performance, and (d) self-worth, arranged in a causal structure as
shown in Covington (1984, p. 8). In this model ability represents one’s self-perception of
ability. His model is a directed graph in which ability, performance and effort are linked to
self-worth and ability and effort are also linked to performance.

• The basic assumption of the self-worth model is that multiple factors influence one’s sense
of self-worth. Its fundamental premise is that “one’s sense of worth depends heavily on one’s
accomplishments” (Covington, 1984, p. 8). This is represented in the model by the
performance –> self-worth link. This implies that unless a person is, or can become,
successful at some valued activity, he or she “will be cut off from a major source of self-
esteem” (p. 8). However, the fact that performance isn’t the only path to self-worth implies
that self-worth might also be derived from one’s perception of their own ability (brilliance) or
through the efforts of hard work (diligence). As Covington put it in general terms, “human
beings tend to embrace success no matter how it occurs” (p. 8), but there are exceptions.
People will sometimes reject credit for their successes if they feel they cannot repeat them.
Also, success resulting from remedial assistance is not always valued in the same way that
successes based solely on one’s own efforts are. Covington, however, expressed a view that
despite such exceptions, “humans do typically discount factors that might qualify or discredit
their successes and cast their failures in the best possible light.

• The model also shows the direct and indirect influences of self-perceptions of ability and
the expenditure of effort on one’s sense of worth. “Mere perception of high ability can
sometimes come to imply worthiness, even in the absence of solid accomplishments”
(Covington, 1984, p. 9), however, “it is within [the instrumental linkage of ability ->
performance -> worth] that the value of ability ultimately resides, since typically an
individual’s sense of worth cannot long rest solely on a reputation for intelligence” (p. 9).
Thus, what really counts is achievement and “ability is valued as its chief causal agent” (p.
9).

• Effort is also a direct sense of self-worth, since a strong effort is sometimes rewarded, and it
is generally recognized that hard work is a necessary component of successful performance.
However, Covington (1984) described effort as “a double-edged sword” (p. 10). On the one
hand, effort in school is necessary to “avoid teacher punishment and personal feelings of
guilt” (p. 10. On the other hand, trying hard “puts the student at risk” (p. 10) because “a
combination of high effort and failure also leads to suspicions of low ability….[which]
triggers humiliation and shame” (p. 10).

• Covington (1984) described two self-serving strategies to avoid failure: excuses and the
assurance of success. Excuses include, for example, the setting of unrealistically high goals
and procrastination—both of which allow the student to “fail with honor” (p. 12). Other
examples of excuses in the school classroom include (from Covington, 1998): not studying
(p. 16); responding vaguely (p. 84), not trying (p. 85); avoiding work that is not absolutely
required (p. 85); doing as little as possible (p. 85); remaining silent (p. 85); outright refusal
(p. 85); false effort (p. 85); giving the outward appearances of understanding, while not really
understanding (p. 85); a pensive, quizzical look to give the impression that one is too busy
thinking to be interrupted (p. 85); asking questions whose answers are already known (p. 85);
copying from a neighbors’ paper, and perhaps adding a unique touch (p. 85), and the public
admission of some minor personal weakness or handicap to avoid disclosing intellectual
inadequacy, also known as, “the academic wooden leg” (p. 89).

• Strategies for the assurance of success include setting standards for success at such a modest
level that the likelihood of failing is very low, and avoiding failure by succeeding
(Covington, 1984, p. 12). The latter strategy is often favored by bright students who succeed
through a combination of intelligence and hard work. However, because it is used as a
defense strategy to avoid failure, they “often remain doubtful of their abilities despite an
enviable record of accomplishments” (p. 12). This type of person is referred to by Covington
as an “overstriver” (p. 12). Another successguaranteeing strategy listed by Covington (1998)
is academic cheating (p. 92).

• Temporary relief by these failure avoiding strategies is “illusory, since their repeated use
will finally destroy the will to learn” (Covington, 1984, p. 12). Better alternatives, Covington
suggests, are “the use of noncompetitive learning structures whenever possible [e.g.,
cooperative learning, individual goal setting, and contract learning]” (p. 16) and “to
encourage additional sources of worth beyond the mere possession of ability” (p. 17). He
(1998) also suggests that “we must be weary of blaming the failure of students to learn
simply on a lack of motivation” (p. 16):

• The absence of behavior—docility, passivity, and listlessness—is surely just as motivated

as is a lively abundance of behavior. According to the self-worth analysis, the reluctant
learner who may refuse to study is already motivated, driven by circumstances to protect his
or her self-esteem. (Covington, 1998, p. 16)

Achievement motivation : Atkinson

Achievement motivation theory for Atkinson was an expectancyvalue theory because

he assumed that the tendency to engage in a particular activity is related to the strength of an
expectation (belief) that the behavior will lead to a particular consequence. In addition, the
value of that consequence for the person is important (Atkinson & Birch, 1978). Thus, people
are assumed to engage in achievement-related situations as a result of their belief that doing
so will lead to particular valued goals.
In achievement theory, Ta is used to symbolize the tendency to approach (or to avoid)
an achievement-related situation. Although this tendency is influenced by external rewards
(money, approval), most research emphasis has focused on intrinsic (internal) variables such
as the pride associated with achievement or the shame associated with failure. The tendency
to approach or avoid achievement situations is thought to result from four variables: the
motive for success (Ms), the motive to avoid failure (Maf), the estimated probability of
success (Ps), and the incentive value (Is) of achieving success. Ms and Maf are regarded as
stable personality characteristics that will vary in strength from one individual to another, but
will be relatively permanent within individuals across different situations. Both Ms and Maf
are thought to be learned early in life through association with parental rewards where
achievement-related cues were present at the time reward was received. Ms will be high in
those individuals for whom achievement cues have been paired with positive emotions in the
past. However, a strong Maf will develop if a person’s attempts at achievement have been
associated with negative emotional consequences. Expectancy-value theory conceptualizes
all individuals as possessing both Ms and Maf. However, the two motives will possess
different strengths in different people because of varied past experiences (good and bad) in
achievement-related situations. Thus, people whose Ms > Maf (the symbol > is to be read
“greater than”) will tend to approach achievement situations, while people whose Maf > Ms
will generally avoid them. The intensity of this motive to approach or avoid a situation is
determined by the remaining two variables: Ps and Is. In contrast to the relatively stable Ms
and Maf, Ps and Is are assumed to vary from situation to situation. Recall that Ps is the
person’s subjective estimate of succeeding (obtaining the desired goal) in the particular
situation. The incentive value of success (Is) is the value of actually achieving the goal and
represents the fact that some goals are worth more than others. For intrinsic goals, it is
believed that Ps and Is are inversely related to each other. In other words, the easier the task,
the less value obtaining of the goal will have; the harder the task, the greater the value of
success. For example, suppose that you are a research participant in a study on achievement.
You are given a puzzle to solve, which you do successfully. You will probably take more
pride in your achievement if you are told by the experimenter that the puzzle is very difficult
and that very few people can do it (low Ps; high Is) than you would if you were told that
almost everyone solves the puzzle correctly (high Ps; low Is). If we further examine the
relationship between Ps and Is for tasks of varying difficulty, an interesting pattern emerges.
It turns out that tasks of moderate difficulty are stronger motivators (to approach or to avoid
an achievement situation) than tasks that are either very easy or very hard. Easy tasks
maximize Ps, but their completion does not give us a sense of achievement because they are
so effortless (low Is). As a matter of fact, if we should happen to fail at an easy task, we
would probably experience some degree of shame. On the other hand, extremely difficult
tasks have high Is, but we may avoid them because Ps is so low. However, we are less likely
to feel shame if we fail at a difficult task. It is the moderately difficult task that provides us
with a fair challenge (moderate Ps and Is) that, if met, will result in a feeling of
accomplishment. But, moderately difficult tasks also provide us with a real possibility of
failure. How does expectancy-value theory help us to predict whether a person will choose to
approach or avoid a task of moderate difficulty? It depends on one’s level of Ms and Maf.
Consider the contrasting examples of Terrence and Denise. Terrence is a high school senior
who is applying to college. He has the choice of applying to a highly prestigious university
with a very low acceptance rate (low Ps, high Is); a well-regarded state university with a
moderate acceptance rate (moderate Ps, moderate Is), or to a less prestigious safety school,
which has a very high acceptance rate (high Ps, low Is). To which will he apply? According
to expectancy-value theory, it depends on his Ms and Maf. Suppose that, in the past, Terrence
has often had his attempts at achievement associated with negative emotional consequences.
In short, Terrence has a strong Maf and a weaker Ms. Because his Maf > Ms, Terrence will
generally attempt to avoid all achievement situations.However, achievement situations of
moderate difficulty (e.g., applying to the state university) should be the most aversive to
Terrence. If Terrence were to apply to the safety school, he would maximize his Ps, which is
very important to someone with a strong Maf. If he were to apply to the highly prestigious
school, the odds are that he would fail to gain admission, but he could attribute the failure to
the very low Ps inherent in the task. Either of these two options would be preferable to
applying to the state university, where he has a moderate chance of failing at a task that many
people can accomplish (something that is very aversive to an individual with a strong Maf).
The lower half of Figure 8.7 depicts the relative likelihood of Terrence’s application decision
based on expectancy-value theory. Denise is also a high school senior who must make the
same decision as Terrence. The difference is that Denise’s past experiences in achievement
situations have met with positive emotional consequences. Thus, Denise’s Ms > Maf. If
Denise were to apply to the safety school she would likely be accepted, but this would not
provide much sense of accomplishment for someone with a strong Ms. Conversely, applying
to the highly prestigious school provides her with a low Ps, which is also unappealing to
someone who is motivated to succeed. Expectancy-value theory predicts that Denise would
be most likely to apply to the state university, because she has a moderate chance at
accomplishing a goal that has value for her. The upper half of Figure 8.7 depicts the relative
likelihood of Denise’s application decision, which you will notice is the mirror image of that
of Terrence.
(Criticisms Refer Petri Pg 250)

Unit 4: Arousal theory: Yerkes-Dodson law.

AROUSAL THEORY

An alternate theory of motivation is known as arousal theory. This theory focuses on

arousal, our general level of activation. Arousal theory is a theory in which people are said to
have an optimal (best or ideal) level of tension that they seek to maintain by increasing or
decreasing stimulation. Arousal theory presents both a physiological and a cognitive
explanation of behavior. The term arousal has both psychological and physiological meaning.
As a physiological concept, arousal refers to the degree of activation of the organism, which
is often measured in terms of changes in heart rate and blood pressure, changes in
conductivity of the skin to electricity (called electrodermal response), and changes in
electrical activity of the brain. As a psychological concept, it refers to the degree of alertness,
wakefulness, or at tentativeness of a person or animal. It varies in degree from sleep (at the
lowest level), to panic or frenzy (at the highest).

Motivation:
 Motivation is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors.
It is what causes you to act, whether it is getting a glass of water to reduce thirst or reading a
book to gain knowledge. Motivation involves the biological, emotional, social, and cognitive
forces that activate behavior. In everyday usage, the term "motivation" is frequently used to
describe why a person does something. It is the driving force behind human actions.

Yerkes-Dodson Law

The Yerkes Dodson Law is an empirical relationship between arousal and

performance, originally developed by psychologists Robert. M. Yerkes and John Dillingham
Dodson in 1908. The law stating that when tasks are simple, a higher level of arousal leads to
better performance; when tasks are difficult, lower levels of arousal lead to better
performance. Yerkes Dodson Law suggest that there’s a direct relationship between arousal
and performance. Law establishes that performance increases with physiological or mental
arousal, but only upto a certain point When excitation level become too high, performance
decreases

According to this law, the best way to enhance arousal and performance is to work on
tasks that allow us to remain alert. In their experiment, Yerkes and Dodson discovered that
electric shocks could motivate rats to complete a maze. However when they overly shocked
them, performance level decreased and simply they tried to escape from the maze. Mild
electrical shocks could be used to motivate rats to complete a maze.

An example of how the Yerkes Dodson law works in the anxiety you experience
before an exam. An optimal level of stress can help you focus on the test and remember the
information that you studied, but too much test anxiety can impair your ability to concentrate
and make it more difficult to remember the correct answers.

The type of task and complexity of the task plays a role in determining the optimal
levels of arousal. The law states that when tasks are simple, a high level of arousal leads to
better performance; when tasks are difficult, lower level of arousal lead to better
performance. Moderate level of arousal is best for performance.

THE INVERTED U MODEL

Yerkes Dodson law can be illustrated graphically as a bell shaped curve that increases
and then decreases with higher excitation levels. Due to the difference of the tasks, the shape
of the curve can vary. The Inverted-U Theory describes a clear relationship between pressure
and performance.The Inverted-U Theory gets its name from the curve created when the
correlation between pressure (or "arousal") and performance is shown on a graph. The left
hand side of the graph, above, shows the situation where people aren't being challenged.
Here, they see no reason to work hard at a task, or they're in danger of approaching their
work in a "sloppy," unmotivated way. The middle of the graph shows where people work at
peak effectiveness. They're sufficiently motivated to work hard, but they're not so overloaded
that they're starting to struggle. This is where people can experience "flow," the enjoyable
and highly productive state in which they can do their best work. The right hand side of the
graph shows where they're starting to fall apart under pressure. They're overwhelmed by the
volume and scale of competing demands on their attention, and feeling a serious lack of
control over their situation. They may exhibit signs of hurry sickness , stress, or out-and-out
panic.

Influencers of the Inverted-U Theory

The impact of pressure can be complex. But four key factors, or "influencers," affect how the
Inverted-U Theory plays out in practice:

1. Skill Level.
2. Personality.
3. Trait Anxiety.
4. Task Complexity.

1) Skill level:

A highly trained person who is confident in their abilities can appropriately manage situations
with lots of pressure. Increased skill and confidence can only bring benefits to individuals
and organizations.

2) Personality:

Personality also plays an important role to handle pressure.

Psychologists believe that extroverts are better at handling pressure than introverts

Introverts perform better in absence of pressure.

3) Trait Anxiety:
Think of trait anxiety as the level of a person's "self-talk." People who are self-confident are
more likely to perform better under pressure. This is because their self-talk is under control,
which means that they can stay "in flow," and they can concentrate fully on the situation at
hand.

The more that people are able to lower their anxiety about a task (with practice, or with
positive thinking) the better they'll perform. Self-talk people usually perform better under
pressure compared to the people who are less self-confident who basically perform well
under low pressure.

4) Task Complexity:

Task complexity describes the level of attention and effort that people have to put into a task
in order to complete it successfully. People can perform simple activities under quite high
levels of pressure, while complex activities are better carried out in a calm, low-pressure
environment. The factors other than task difficulty also seem to play a role. For instance large
individual differences exist with respect to preferred arousal level. At once, at one extreme
are persons who prefer and seek high levels of activation- sky divers. On the other hand there
are persons who prefer much lower levels of arousal. So although arousal theory provides
useful insight into the nature of motivation, the fact that we cannot readily predict what will
constitute an optimal level of arousal does limit its usefulness to a degree.

Applicability:

The law has its applicability in our everyday life situations(exam anxiety, sports
performances etc.) The law has its implications on organizational and industrial psychology
as well.

Examples

 Working out and being physically healthy is really important. But if you work out too
much, you could over-train and injure yourself, which results in less overall health in
the long run.
 Having a good job and enjoying your work is great. But if you work too much, you
tend to neglect other important aspects of your life, such as your health and family.