Literature Review of Theories of Motivation

Introduction

Motivation is the greatest problem in the employment setup and learning environment in the world today. it has been branded as the most difficult single problem faced by managers and teachers as they manage the organization and teach in the classroom respectively. In a learning environment, the benefits of studying a specific discipline are distant and uncertain that is certain employment opportunities will promote demotivation. Yet the problem of motivation remains “unspoken” because research has failed to tell us what it is. Despite raised hopes in the sixties when the identification of integrative, instrumental, intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation made the path of future research seem clear, little progress was made in the following two decades (Kelly C, 2006). Studies based on these concepts not only failed to provide us with new insights but also cast doubt on the validity of these very concepts.

Despite the divergence of the approaches used to study motivation, its definitions are surprisingly uniform. In simple terms, motivation, based on the Latin verb for “move,” is the force that makes one do something ( Kelly C, 2006). A process involves goals, physical or mental activity, and is both instigated and sustained (Pint rich & Schunk, 1996; Williams, 1997). It is characterized in terms of direction, duration, and intensity. Therefore, motivation can be defined as the means of emerging, directing, and sustaining employee effort. It involves leading people to behave in a specific, goal-directed.

It is also defined about education as producing “engagement in and persistence with the learning task” (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). Crookes & Schmidt, (1991) stated that “would describe a student as motivated if he or she becomes productively engaged in learning tasks and sustains that engagement, without the need for continual encouragement or direction”

Mitchell’s definition is: “Motivation becomes those psychological processes that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal-related”. Therefore, the theories in these two fields must be examined separately. Schisms also exist, in both fields, between current and recent views. Theories of motivation have changed drastically in the last ten to fifteen years

Vroom expectancy theory

In 1964, Victor Vroom developed a theory of motivation that is relevant to date. The theory examines motivation from the point of view as to why people opt to follow a specific route or course of action or to do things the way doing them. The expectancy theory argues that the power of propensity to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual” (Ramiall, S. 2004,). The theory that explains individual behavior as the result of conscious choices amongst alternatives whose individual value of a choice is subjectively determined through multiplicative expectancy theory is also called Valence Instrumentality Expectancy (Rapport J, 2004). Valence Instrumentality and expectancy became variables in the model proposed by Vroom. These variables are discussed as follows.

Valence: Valence is the sign that the individual places upon the expected outcome of a situation. The fundamental hypothesis is that individuals prefer certain work-related outcomes to others. This preference refers to a relationship between the desire for one outcome over another; higher relationships indicating a higher preference for one outcome over another (Rapport J, 2004). Vroom calls this preference for one outcome over another valence and defines the concept as the “affective orientations toward particular outcomes” (Vroom, V. 1964).

About education, it means that students’ satisfaction will be determined by the expected return after completion of the academic learning. The expectation may not be actual but it will motivate learning. This is the most critical component of this theory valance is determined through the level of satisfaction the individual expects (perceives) to receive, which may not necessarily be the actual value derived. As Vroom points out, “there may be a substantial discrepancy between the anticipated satisfaction from an outcome (i.e., its valance) and the actual satisfaction that it proves (i.e., its value) [Vroom, V. 1964)].

Expectancy is the belief that output from the individual and the success of the situation are linked, e.g. if I work harder then this will be better. Expectancy can generally be defined as the perceived effort performance relationship; the perceived strength of whether a particular outcome is possible. It is the perceived Expectancy that one’s effort will lead to the desired performance. Vroom defines Expectancy as the “momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome [Vroom, V. 1964)]. Maximum expectancy is determined by one’s expectations that an act will be followed by an outcome, minimal Expectancy is one’s expectations that an act will not be followed by an outcome. In essence, if an individual perceives the desired performance is attainable, they will exert the required effort; assuming that perceived Instrumentality is 1, and valance is positive.

Instrumentality is the belief that the success of the situation is linked to the expected outcome of the situation, e.g. it is gone well, so I would expect praise. Therefore, we can define instrumentality as the perceived performance reward relationship; it is the perceived belief that if one meets or exceeds performance expectations an individual will receive compensation. A given level of performance can also be positively valent if an individual believes it will lead to other outcomes.

For example, if one expects a highly correlated relationship between working hard and attaining a bright future, then the Instrumentality value is 1; it can also be nearly 1 if the individual has doubt, or other performance factors are taken into consideration. On the other hand, if a perceived bright future follows any level of performance, and then instrumentality is low. The individual in the former case will work harder to attain the reward than the later individual who perceives any level of performance will attain the reward.

The above factors as stated by Vroom (Expectancy instrumentality, and valance) taken together as a multiplicative formula can be used to approximate motivational forces acting on an individual.

Effort ————— performance —————-Outcome

This theory argues that a person’s decision is based on the multiplicative value of (1) The relationship between perceived effort and performance probability (2) The strength between perceived performance and reward probability (3) The perceived value of the reward. This means that the three must be present for motivation to be there. As expectancy theory indicates, beliefs about work are based on personal perceptions of a given situation. It is these beliefs, based on perceptions, which impact an individual’s behavior. Then it is an individual’s perceptions a supervisor needs to target to motivate his staff. Within this section, I will address the applicability of the Expectancy theory as well as its limitations.

Equity theory

The equity approach to motivation is homeostatic. it states that people are motivated by a sense of fairness in society or the workplace(Mitchell, 1982). This means that if a person perceives or detects an inequity between the amount of effort they are providing they are to put in and rewards or outcome, they will be motivated to do more, or less work (Adams, 1965). This theory takes into account the key components as internal comparisons occur and that they are based on perceived rather than real values (Kelly C., 2006). This means that perception is more important than real values. Suppose a student perceives his education negatively then he will drop out of school. However, if he perceives it as a source of a bright future then he will put more effort than this will improve performance. This equity theory applies to employment settings or some social settings.

Equity theory suggests that there will be regression towards the mean, even in additive tasks (Adams, 1965). According to equity theory, people desire the ratio of their outcomes and investments to be roughly equivalent to the ratio for some other referent person or group. If ratios are not equal, and the difference is beyond some individual threshold level, emotional responses occur and the desire to restore equity manifests itself. To restore equity, people have several choices. They can change their outcomes, change their inputs, distort the value of either their outcomes or inputs, leave the field, change the outcomes of inputs of another, or change the referent person or group. In a work setting, one method to restore balance would be to change inputs by changing how hard the person works. They would work faster when their coworkers are faster and slower when their coworkers are slower. In other words, equity theory would predict a regression toward the mean, similar to that found in conjunctive tasks, but contrary to the results in additive tasks cited previously.

Adams (1965) stated, “Reactions to an inequity situation vary. People respond by changing their inputs or outcomes, by changing the outcomes or inputs of others, by distorting values of outcomes or inputs, by leaving the field or by changing their referent person” this theory assumes that people do not necessarily choose the average person as their referent this means that people will choose those a higher link. They may be reacting to a subgroup or a single coworker. Therefore, using equity theory the range of human responses could be due to physical limits on an individual’s speed, a mix of responses to an individual inequity, different individual thresholds, different response modes in different inequity situations, or because they may have chosen a referent other than the average of coworkers. In this way, equity theory provides a reasonable explanation of the difference noted in the analysis.

Goal-setting theory

When a teacher wants to know the performance of his students today, it is very tempting to set goals (pass marks) based on performance. However, there is nothing wrong with setting goals; there is at least one situation where goals based on performance may not be appropriate. For example, a student is handling a new topic or assignment that is beyond her/his understanding. In such a case, it will be better to set goals based on the learning process rather than on his or her actual performance in achieving or completing the assignment.

In 1979 Edwin Locke and Gary Latham came up with goal setting theory which is considered to be one of the most effective motivational theories of our time. They carried out two studies in which specific goals were set for loggers and productivity increased. Based on these findings, they presented the Goal-Setting Theory. The basic premise is that conscious objectives will influence an employee’s work behavior. The goals must be specific, as opposed to “doing your best,” short-term rather than long term, challenging rather than easy, with feedback on performance, and without punishment for failure.

The goal-setting can be summarized into four parts as follows:

1. Setting specific, challenging goals leads to higher performance than setting no goals or abstract goals such as doing one’s best. Abstract goals, in contrast, allow individuals to give themselves the benefit of the doubt in evaluating their performance as a success. In the absence of a specific, challenging goal, individuals have a strong tendency to assume that their performance is better than it is. Therefore, individuals do not typically give their maximum effort when they are instructed to merely do their best. Specific goals are best attained when quantitative terms are set and a deadline for attaining the goal is added.
2. There is a correlation between the goal and performance: The higher the goal, the higher performance. Only when individuals reach the limits of their abilities will that linear relationship level off. Goals thus need to be realistic or believable to have a positive effect on performance. Commitment becomes harder to obtain with increased goal levels.
3. Response/feedback is important, but by itself, it is not sufficient to cause goals are to affect performance. For instance, the student must be informed of his performance to be able to know his progress so that he can adjust to meet the pass mark. The most effective feedback is that which allows individuals to make adjustments so that they can grow and develop their skills and effectiveness. At the same time, however, providing feedback in cases where individuals are not committed to a specific, challenging goal has little effect on performance. It has been well documented that it is important to set goals and obtain feedback to increase performance.
4. Employee participation and incentives affect performance only to the extent to which they lead to the setting of, and commitment to, specific, challenging goals. For example, in contrast to what some individuals believe, participation in goal setting is more valuable as an information exchange than as a method of gaining commitment to goals.

Social cognitive theory

Miller and Dollard proposed this theory in 1941. It is referred to as social learning theory. In 1963, Bandura and Walters broadened the social learning theory with the principles of observational learning and vicarious reinforcement. This theory deals with cognitive, emotional aspects and aspects of behavior for understanding behavioral change that is behavior modification. There are several assumptions associated with this theory. Bandura, (1997) argues that social cognitive theory explains how people acquire and maintain certain behavioral patterns, while also providing the basis for intervention strategies. Appraising behavioral modification depends on several factors among them the environment, people, and behavior.

The environment is those factors that can affect a person’s behavior. There exists both social and physical environment as describing Bandura. The social environment includes family members, friends, and colleagues. The physical environment is the size of space, the ambient temperature, or the availability of certain necessities. Parraga, (1990) argues that environment and situation provide the framework for understanding behavior. According to him, a situation is the cognitive or mental representation of the environment that may affect a person’s behavior. The situation is a person’s perception of the lace, time, physical features, and activity argue Glanz et al, (2002).

The mentioned factors that are environment, people, and behavior influence each other at all times. Behavior is not simply the result of the environment and the person, just as the environment is not simply the result of the person and behavior comments Glanz et al, (2002). The environment provides models for behavior. Observational learning occurs when a person watches the actions of another person and the reinforcements that the person receives (Bandura, 1997). The concept of behavior can be viewed in many ways. Behavioral capability means that if a person is to perform a behavior he must know what the behavior is and have the skills to perform it (Glanz et al, 2002).

According to Glanz et al,(2002), He wrote that the terms used in social cognitive theory are:

1. Environment: Factors physically external to the person; Provides opportunities and social support.
2. Situation: Perception of the environment; correct misperceptions and promote healthful forms
3. Behavioral capability: Knowledge and skill to perform a given behavior; promote mastery learning through skills training.
4. Expectations: Anticipatory outcomes of a behavior; Model positive outcomes of healthful behavior.
5. Expectancies: The values that the person places on a given outcome, incentives; Present outcomes of change that have functional meaning.
6. Self-control: Personal regulation of goal-directed behavior or performance. It provides opportunities for self-monitoring, goal setting, problem-solving, and self-reward.
7. Observational learning: Behavioral acquisition that occurs by watching the actions and outcomes of others’ behavior; Include credible role models of the targeted behavior.
8. Reinforcements: Responses to a person’s behavior that increase or decrease the likelihood of reoccurrence; Promote self-initiated rewards and incentives.
9. Self-efficacy: The person’s confidence in performing a particular behavior; Approach behavioral change in small steps to ensure success.
10. Emotional coping responses: Strategies or tactics that are used by a person to deal with emotional stimuli; provide training in problem-solving and stress management.
11. Reciprocal determinism: The dynamic interaction of the person, the behavior, and the environment in which the behavior is performed; consider multiple avenues to behavioral change, including environmental, skill, and personal change.

Bandura (1986) wrote “ a view of human functioning that accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. People are viewed as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive organisms shaped and shepherded by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner impulses”. From this theoretical perspective, human functioning is viewed as the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental influence.

About learning many research have been carried out about the cognitive approach to motivation in learning. As we discussed cognitive theories focus on choice, goals, and styles (Kelly C, 2006).

“In a study done by Ellis, for example, the learning styles seemed closely connected to a “positive affective orientation” towards language study. Although the relationship between learning styles and motivation has so far only been implied, it is safe to assume that since achievement and motivation are closely related, and since the discussion on motivation is increasing, learning styles will soon be recognized as an important factor (Kelly, C. 2006).

Operant conditioning

Skinner B.F (1968) to explain the effects of the consequences of a particular behavior on the future occurrence of that behavior used Operant Conditioning. He highlighted four operant conditioning, which includes positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. In positive reinforcement, a particular behavior is strengthened by the consequence of experiencing a positive condition. While in negative reinforcement, a particular behavior is strengthened by the consequence of stopping or avoiding a negative condition. In punishment, a particular behavior is weakened by the consequence of experiencing a negative condition. While in extinction, a particular behavior is weakened by the consequence of not experiencing a positive condition or stopping a negative condition.

Changes in behavior are the result of an individual’s response to events (stimuli) that occur in the environment. A response produces a consequence such as defining a word, hitting a ball, or solving a math problem. When a particular Stimulus-Response pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond. The distinctive characteristic of operant conditioning relative to previous forms of behaviorism is that the organism can emit responses instead of only eliciting responses due to an external stimulus.

One of the distinctive aspects of Skinner’s theory is that it attempted to provide behavioral explanations for a broad range of cognitive phenomena. For example, Skinner explained drive (motivation) in terms of deprivation and reinforcement schedules. Skinner (1957) tried to account for verbal learning and language within the operant conditioning paradigm, although this effort was strongly rejected by linguists and psycholinguists. Skinner (1971) deals with the issue of free will and social control.

Scope/Application

Operant conditioning has been widely applied in clinical settings (i.e., behavior modification) as well as teaching that is a classroom management and instructional development. Parenthetically, it should be noted that Skinner rejected the idea of theories of learning (Skinner, 1950).

Principles:

1. Behavior that is positively reinforced will reoccur; intermittent reinforcement is particularly effective
2. Information should be presented in small amounts so that responses can be reinforced.
3. Reinforcements will generalize across similar stimuli (“stimulus generalization”) producing secondary conditioning

Self-efficacy theory

This theory is associated with Bandura and he maintains that if a person believes that they cannot effectively perform a task or cope with a situation, it is unlikely they will attempt it. Therefore, this theory examines the connection between belief and experience. Perceived self-efficacy will determine how much energy is spent in coping with the situation. If the person’s perceived self-efficacy is low, little energy will be spent. However, if expectations for success are high, more energy will be expended therefore it is the expectation for efficacy, which determines whether the behavior will be initiated, pursued, or generalized to other contexts (Bandura, 1977).

Efficacy expectations vary according to their magnitude, generality, and strength. Magnitude refers to the perceived level of difficulty, which will vary from client to client. The generality of efficacy expectations refers to whether expectations are circumscribed to a particular behavior or are more universally applicable. Some experiences create expectations of a more general nature while others are confined to specific actions and behaviors. It also varies in strength; weak expectations are easily extinguished through disconfirming experience. Strong expectations tend to help clients to persevere in the face of disconfirming experiences (Bandura, 1977). Bandura suggested that people derive their expectations for efficacy through the interaction of four sources of information: performance accomplishments, modeling (vicarious experiences), verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.

Performance

Performance accomplishment provides the most influential information on efficacy because it is centered on experiences of personal mastery. The experience of mastery or success is fundamental to the development of high expectations of efficacy. Conversely, the experience of failure can lead to decreased expectations of efficacy. Self-efficacy expectations that are enhanced through participant modeling tend to be generalized to other situations where clients experience similar Self -debilitating inadequacies (Bandura, Adams & Myer, in Bandura, 1977).

McGowan M.L. (1986) wrote, “The performance of problem solving tasks is the central component of Challenge Education programming. Students are confronted with a series of tasks, which require communication, cooperation, commitment, personal responsibility and trust in order to be completed successfully. The tasks are ordered by increasing levels of complexity and perceived risk. As the student progresses through each level successfully their expectations to effectively communicate, cooperate, and act responsibly, tend to increase. Because the skills learned and relearned are fundamentally prosocial, the students’ expectations to interact in a socially acceptable manner are enhanced. Self directed experiences make up the final step in the progression of problem solving tasks. These experiences help the student to practice Self-directed responsible behavior. The experience of Self-directed mastery within the program helps the student to generalize newly learned responsible behaviors to other contexts and thus experience increased expectations to act responsibly in situations where previously they have acted irresponsibly”. The undergoing quote shows that primary experience plays an important role.

Vicarious experience

Modeling is another source of Self-efficacy information, which people use to formulate expectations for personal efficacy. Using observation, people develop a belief that they can also perform in a similar manner (Bandura and Barab, 1973).

In Challenge Education the activities are undertaken by the student and the group have definable outcomes and are designed to confront the group with difficulty in obtaining a successful solution. Each participant is allowed to view a diverse set of peers working at solving a difficult problem successfully. Thus, the student may view his peers’ attempts and can gauge his expectations to effectively execute the tasks (McGowan M.L. 1986).

Verbal Persuasion

The third component that contributes to efficacy information is verbal persuasion as identified by Bandura. When verbal persuasion information is disconfirmed by experience, not only are the efficacy expectations of the clients undermined but the credibility of the persuader is also questioned (Bandura, 1977). The instructor to assist the students to understand their role in success and failure utilizes verbal and nonverbal processing, instead of persuasion. McGowan 1986 wrote “Bloom, et. Al’s, Hierarchy of Learning (1956) is utilized to facilitate a clear understanding and recognition of the students’ actions and beliefs as they relate to their success and failure. Each experience is discussed utilizing the learning hierarchy to establish the facts of what occurred in a manner that minimizes opportunities for the students to impose irresponsible values onto the outcomes. The consequences of the tasks make it extremely difficult for students to excuse or rationalize failure-oriented behaviors. The progression of perceived risk and difficulty make it possible for the students to clearly see the connection between perseverance, commitment, effort, and success, as well as procrastination, laziness, ambiguity and failure.” The instructor structures processing in six steps: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Arousal

Lastly, Arousal was identified as a source of efficacy information that deals with the client’s emotional state and arousal level. Take an example of a student who receives negative information about a discipline he is undertaking, they may be so debilitated by their emotional arousal as to avoid the situations (Bandura, 1977).

Regarding arousal, McGowan wrote, “Perceived risk is utilized as opposed to actual risk situations in order to enhance the consequences of action. Also, perceived risk can be controlled to the level of the student, thus limiting arousal and varying the perceived level of difficulty. “To succeed at easy tasks provides no new information for altering one’s sense of self-efficacy, whereas mastery of challenging tasks conveys salient evidence of enhanced competence” (Bandura, 1977). Great care must be taken not to place the student in situations where the level of arousal is so high that it renders the student unable, because of fear, to perform successfully”.

Self-efficacy is the perception of one’s competence, a construct that Bandura recognized was of critical importance and plays a major role in his social cognitive model of behaviors (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Williams, 1997). Efficacy theory also includes the construct, outcome expectations, which refer to the expected rewards or punishments for performance. The interaction of these constructs shapes the type of behavior one exhibits.

Reinforcement theory

This theory at times is called consequences behavior theory. Because it sums consequences to influence behavior. The theory states that people do things because they know other things will follow. Thus, depending upon the type of consequence that follows, people will produce some behaviors and avoid others. There are three basic principles of this theory. These are the Rules of Consequences and they describe the logical outcomes which typically occur after consequences.

1. Consequences, which give rewards, increase a behavior.
2. Consequences, which give Punishments, decrease a behavior.
3. Consequences, which give neither Rewards nor Punishments, extinguish a behavior.

These principles indicate that if you want to increase behavior that makes it more frequent, more intense, more likely, then when the behavior is shown, provide a consequence of Reward. If you want to decrease a behavior that is make it less frequent, less intense, less likely, then when the behavior is shown, provide a Consequence of Punishment. Finally, if you want a behavior to extinguish that is disappearing, fall out of the behavioral repertoire, then when the behavior is shown, then provide no Consequence that ignores the behavior.

Take an example of a classroom take chocolate as a rewarding consequence. If you ask them to sit quietly for some time and you reward with chocolate, those kids will learn to sit quietly. The chocolate that is Consequence of Reward is used to increase the behavior of sitting quietly. To understand if you have a Reward, you must observe its effect. If the Consequence increases the behavior you want to increase, viola, you have a Reward. If the Consequence decreases the behavior you want to decrease, then you have a Punishment. Most teachers have had the unfortunate experience of Mrs. Reinforcer. They have persisted in giving a Consequence of Punishment and lo and behold, the kid keeps doing the bad thing. If the behavior does not increase or decrease the way you want it to, then you need to rethink your rewards and punishments.

Concisely, the main point of this theory is that consequences influence behavior. Rewarding consequences increase behavior. Punishing consequences decrease behavior. No consequences extinguish a behavior. Finally, a consequence is known by its function that is how it operates.

The limitations of reinforcement

This theory has several limitations although considered one of the greatest. These limitations include.

1. It is difficult to identify rewards and punishments.
2. You must control all sources of reinforcement.
3. Internal changes can be difficult to create. One side effect of reinforcement theory is that children learn to perform behaviors we want them to show only when the reward is available. If the Reward is not present, then the child will not show cooperation or good effort or attention or friendliness. The child has not internalized the behavior but instead requires the full process. This means that the teacher must always be running around providing the correct consequences for the desired behaviors at the right time.
4. Punishing is difficult to do well. Punishment is an extremely powerful consequence for all living things. Punishing consequences produces extremely rapid, strong, and memorable changes. The problem is that effective punishment demands certain requirements. research has shown that effective punishment must be: a) immediate b) intense (c) unavoidable (c) consistent. If you cannot deliver punishment under these conditions, then the punishment is likely to fail.
5. Students may come to hate teachers who use punishment. Punishment is, by definition, an aversive, painful consequence. People experience very negative emotional states when they get punished. Punishment helps accomplish one goal, but at the same time, the punishment is making other goals more difficult to achieve. 6. It is easy to reinforce one pigeon, but a whole flock. Reinforcement theory has been most strongly tested with animals, particularly pigeons. In addition, that research with pigeons has yielded outstanding results. The problem for teachers is this: The research used reinforcement principles on one pigeon at a time. Teachers teach a whole flock. The sheer size of a classroom brings a very difficult dimension into the proper application of reinforcement theory.

Self determination theory

Self determines theory is an approach to motivation and personality that uses traditional empirical methods while employing modern methods that highlight the importance of humans’ evolved inner resources for personality development and behavioral self-regulation (Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997). Thus, the investigation of people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs are the basis for their self-motivation and personality integration, as well as for the conditions that foster those positive processes. There are three needs in this theory which include the needs for competence (Harter, 1978; White, 1963), relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994), and autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975). those appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being.

Most research carried out on this theory also examines environmental factors that hinder or undermine self –motivation social functioning, and personal well-being.

Although many specific deleterious effects have been explored, the research suggests that these detriments can be most parsimoniously described in terms of thwarting the three basic psychological needs. Thus, self-determination theory is concerned not only with the specific nature of positive developmental tendencies, but also examines social environments that are antagonistic toward these tendencies.

The empirical methods used in much of the SDT research have been in the Baconian tradition, in that social contextual variables have been directly manipulated to examine their effects on both internal processes and behavioral manifestations. The use of experimental paradigms has allowed us to specify the conditions under which people’s natural activity and constructiveness will flourish, as well as those that promote a lack of self–motivation and social integration. In this way, we have used experimental methods without accepting the mechanistic or efficient causal meta-theories that have typically been associated with those methods.

References

1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.
2. Adams, S. J. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In: Derkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2 267-299, Academic Press, New York.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
5. Bandura. A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215
6. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
7. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivational. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
8. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.
9. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivational. New York: Plenum.
10. Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
11. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 1, 661-669.
12. Kelly, C. ; 2006; A Review of Traditional and Current Theories of Motivation in ESL
13. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Mitchell, T. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice Academy of Management review, 7(1), 80-88.
15. Parraga, I.M. (1990). “Determinants of Food Consumption”. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 90: 661-663.
16. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Rapport J. 2004; An Analysis of expectancy theory, the Theorist, and the application/Limitations of.
18. Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopa- thology, 9, 701-728.
19. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personali O’ and Social Psychology Bulletin.
20. Skinner, B.F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
21. Skinner, B.F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf.
22. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. 1st ed. United States. Wiley and Sons Inc.
23. White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory New York: International Universities Press. Outward Bound School.
24. Williams, M. B., Robert. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: a social constructivist view: New York: Cambridge.