Recently in motives Category

John's video (proposing the questions)

Hank's video (responding)

Here are two Youtube videos of two brothers. One proposed the question, "what is your ultimate concern" the other replied. Just a heads up if you watch the video...they sort of talk about a lot of other things leading up to the excitement of "ultimate concerns", but all in all they are pretty decent videos.

What I took from the videos:
Just think for a minute: What would you die or kill for?  Is there really something in your life that is that important?  At what point in your life does something become that important?  John has a child and at this point in his life his new baby is his ultimate concern...making sure that his needs are met. (Well that sounds familiar doesn't it; babies have needs too, they just can't satisfy them by themselves!!)

A response from the brother, Hank, proposes some interesting questions in response to the initial questions.

What are you concerned with at all, don't limit it to just the ultimate concern.

What I think is neat is how he explains how there are boundaries (visually I imagined a circle) of things you would die for, things you would fight for, things you care at all about, and finally things you just don't care about. 

This then brings up that maybe something like maybe your own child is something you "would die for", but then the stranger-mom at Wal Mart has a child that is in the area of "things you don't care about".  They are both babies but there is something different about your baby that makes it so much more important to you than the stranger's. 

And for each person this will be different, so what is your ultimate concern? Or, what do you care about, or don't care about? 

When these are defined in our own life we may start to realize our motivations and maybe even goals.  We know from class that we all have physiological needs. Those are obviously of some concern to everyone, and they will be satisfied in much the same way. Then there are psychological needs and social needs and whatever our concerns in this world are will affect those needs. 

Take the concern you thought of from above and apply that to a psychological or social need and how that would have an impact on our behavior in order to satisfy that need.  

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15/health/la-he-marathon-20100315

This article is about different factors that motivate people to participate in marathons. Some of the information seems fairly obvious, especially to people in this class, but it is still interesting to consider these findings. I found it especially interesting that the reason a person runs can make a difference in if they finish the race. In short, it was the people with high intrinsic motivation who tended to finish the training and marathon itself. It said that "The 75 who did not finish were those most likely to have been motivated by the wish to lose weight or gain recognition from others."

This finding makes sense to me, and I think it fits rather well with our individualistic culture. Many of us feel that it should be up to each person how they want to live, we should not spend our lives trying to please others. It would be interesting to see if this finding holds up in collectivistic cultures. If it would, we could be more confident than intrinsic factors of motivation may be inherently more powerful in influencing whether or not a person ultimately finishes a marathon.

This article mentioned that more and more people are creating bucket lists on which they include marathons. The article said this was a form of extrinsic motivation because it is being done for recognition, but I would argue that it really depends on the person. There are undoubtedly some people who will do extreme activities just to brag about them, but there are others (using the bucket list) who simply enjoy the challenge.

I find it rather interesting that some people do it for loved ones, and I have heard that others still do it for Christ. From what we first read (that  the people with high intrinsic motivation tend to finish the marathons), it would seem that these motivations are extrinsic (being done for the approval of others). I think this certainly does seem true, but there are probably exceptions. If a Christian is doing the marathon as a type of self-imposed penance because they feel guilty about past wrongdoings or because they simply want to make a sacrifice for the Lord, that would probably be intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, if a Christian does the marathon as penance to avoid the fires of Hell, it seems that would probably be a form of extrinsic motivation. In retrospect, this past paragraph sounds somewhat like a bad joke, but I believe it is never the less very true.

Another point which merits attention is about endorphins. Over the past couple years I have read very contradictory "findings" on endorphins. You commonly hear that exercising and physical activities releases endorphins, and others have claimed that the level of physical exertion one must undertake to actually release significant levels of endorphins is dangerously high (with such physical activities doing actually more harm than good overall). I honestly do not know which view is objectively correct, so if anyone else might be able to shed light on this area, I would very much appreciate it.

One final point I would like to write about is that there obviously can be both primary and secondary motivations. The article also mentioned that specific reasons for making the commitment to a marathon may change over time. For example: physical health benefits may become dominant. Although raising money for charities seems to be partly be an extrinsic form of motivation, I really do not believe you can place it exclusively in a single category - there may be elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation present (recognition from others and feeling happy that you have helped others).   

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/07/23/who-uses-internet-dating/

With the many advertisements for online dating services like eharmony, matchamaker, and match.com, the online dating industry is obviously doing quite well. Having never considered it myself and not having any friends who have used it,I have always been curious, what personality traits does a person need to possess to be motivated to use this service? Do they fit a specific psychological profile or have a similar set of needs?

According to this article there is a specific psychological profile for users of on-line dating services. They surveyed 3,345 people, both men and women using various questionnaires and psychological measures. Researchers found that more sociable people tend to use internet dating services than those who are less social. This finding was shocking to me; I consider myself very social, outgoing and have many friends with the same characteristics who have never even considered trying it. These findings really defy the stereotypical image of internet daters as lonely and socially anxious.

Perhaps it comes down to geography, and we haven't been exposed to the level of acceptance and commonality of internet dating, though I doubt this will last for long. Researchers have found that using the internet as a means of finding a prospective mate is no longer thought of as unusual. This study is also not unique, previous research has all came to the same conclusion.  Now on-line dating is just another tool at the socialite's disposal.

It also says that while more social people may be the majority of users, not all social people consider this. High-self esteem individuals who value intimate relationships as a key element in their lives are just as likely to use these services as a low self-esteem person who does not view romantic relationships as an important part of their life. Low self-esteem individuals who only put some value on these relationships are less likely to use the services. Here is an excerpt from the findings:

"If the success of romantic relationships is the domain of self worth, one may try to increase the prospect of success and avoid failure in romantic relationships. In the context of Internet dating, when sociable people consider romantic relationships to be an important domain for self-worth, those with high self-esteem will be more likely than those with low self esteem to use Internet dating services.

The reason is that when sociable people consider romantic relationships to be an important domain for self-worth, those with high self-esteem will find it comfortable to present themselves to a multitude
of anonymous people, whereas those with low self-esteem will be more likely to experience a higher level of stress just thinking about disclosing and promoting themselves on the Internet. Less confident individuals may not want their negative self-views publicized or viewed by others.

To reduce such negative feelings and protect their self-worth, those with low self-esteem will adopt avoidance strategies and distance themselves from Internet dating services."

 

So gone are the days of old where internet dating was only for nerds and desperate people. There is actually an interesting article about the science behind these websites as well. It can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/internet/18shortcuts.html?ref=technology

This article is pretty generalized and I would like to have more information. The original article is cited at the bottom and definitely something worth looking into.

I've always been interested in learning what motivates people to do things that would be considered extreme to the general population of that culture.  Why do people kill other people?  There are many different motivating factors that could answer that question.  But what kind of motivators are present for someone to kill another person they don't know and have no personal problem with?

I read an interesting article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100310/ts_csm/286499  about a US-born woman that is described as having become gradually radicalized by Islamic contacts through the internet.  She is a middle-aged American woman that had contact with Muslim extremists and was given an order to kill a man in Sweden.  She was preparing to do so when police got wind of the conspiracy and arrested her.  She agreed to marry a co-conspirator so he could travel more easily and have better access to travel in Europe, which is also an example of extreme behavior that doesn't have a blatant motivator. 

All of her actions seem without obvious motivation.  Religion doesn't seem to be the strongest motivator in this case because none of her comments mention God, converting to Islam, or anything that could be tied with extreme religious belifs.  The little I know about the incident from the article seems to me that she could possibly be motivated by a need for affiliation.  What I infer from the article is that she is a single, middle-aged woman with plenty of time on her hands to spend perusing the internet making contacts with Islamic extremists.  She might feel interpersonal rejection from her peers in her own culture, which is a typical fear of people with high needs for affiliation, and because she was unable to gain approval with people in her culture, sought approval elsewhere and via the internet. 

This woman also seems to display long-term goal setting behaviors.  All of this communication with extremists, planning, and marrying a co-conspirator was done over a period of time in order to achieve the goal of killing the man in Sweden.  These behaviors done before the long-term goal was reached were mini, short-term goals that would have provided enough reinforcement to keep her going with the end result, long-term goal in mind.  Constant communication and smaller steps to take before her desired result provided motivation to continue toward the goal.  It also helped internalize her goal to become more intrinsically motivated.  The article said: "In June, 2008, LaRose posted a comment on YouTube under the moniker "JihadJane" saying that she was "desperate to do something somehow to help" suffering Muslims, according to the indictment." which indicates that she was somehow intrinsically motivated toward extremist thinking to the point of plotting and intending to murder someone.

All of this seems to make sense with what we've been learning in class, but I'm still left wondering how all of these motivators and reinforcers could be enough to make someone intend to murder another person and having adopted these extremist views at a later age in life.  I would be able to understand it more from a motivational standpoint if she had been immersed in this culture and extreme thinking her whole life, but she was born in the US and adopted these views from internet communications.  It doesn't seem like enough motivation to commit murder.  But, perhaps this disturbing phenomenon is why the beginning of the article says how even experts are baffled by this sort of extreme behavior.

      In a study done on stress in the workplace and how it affect our productivity the outcomes was interesting. It seems to be that merely having the ability to control the source of ones stress is beneficial in coping with the situation. A study broke people up into two groups. Both groups had to write/journal about anything the desired. In the middle of the writing there would be a big annoying sound that started to interrupt their thought. One group was told that if the large noise came they could not make it stop. The other group was told that when the large noise happens they had a choice to stop the distraction. Interestingly enough, those individuals who were not able to control the situation showed a lack of emotion in their writing. They had not excitability, creativity or motive to write at all. Whereas the group which could stop the disruptive sound had an increased amount of emotion, creativity, and motive in their writing AND not one of the people in that group asked someone to stop the disruptive noise (Even though they had the CONTROL to do so). Therefore, it appears that its not the disruptive aspects of our lives that are stressing us out, it's the uncontrollable disruptive aspects of our life that produce the most stress to individuals.

 

http://www.humannatureatwork.com/Workplace-Stress-2.htm

http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_34809/

I am going to graduate this upcoming Spring, and I was considering my future work plans. Nothing too specific, but I was just wondering if employee incentives actually work. According to one of the grandest incentive program studies out there, incentives do have a positive effect on employees. After all, work is one of the biggest things that define an individual's life, however fortunate or unfortunate that fact might be. With that in mind it is important to look into incentive programs or discuss them with future employers if the company you work for does not participate in such programs.
Although the study took place back in 2001, it is apparently one of the most comprehensive studies out there investigating incentives at work. Some key findings from the study include:

• Incentive programs aimed at individual workers increase performance 27 percent.
• Programs aimed at teams increase performance 45 percent.
• Incentive programs have an equal, positive impact on both quality and quantity goals.
• Incentive programs structured with employee input work best; however only 23 percent of incentive systems were selected with employee input.
• Long-term incentives are more powerful than short term (44 percent gain vs. 20 percent gain).
  

The fourth bullet point is very interesting, especially how only 23% of incentive systems include employee input. This just goes to show the dominating structure of the upper echelon of workers, unwilling to sacrifice some autonomy for the sake of the employees. Because ultimately, job satisfaction influences life satisfaction, and both of those combined result in a great boost in job performance.

I work at the ROD library as a student assistant in the reference area. I don't expect many incentive opportunities for the lower level student employees, but if I were given the chance to increase the autonomy of my job, I would consider that an incentive. Examples might include having some legitimate input on some of the structural qualities of work, or something to that effect. This then would instill in me a deeper sense of intrinsic motivation, because right now I'm working the job mostly for the paycheck every other week. There are, however, some rewarding moments of helping patrons...

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

In a book I'm reading entitled Stoking the Creative Fires by author Phil Cousineau, I am becoming more inspired by his words than ever before. I have only read a couple chapters of it, so I know there is more greatness to come. I am going to reference a couple quotes from what I have read in hopes of surfacing some insight in whoever reads this. In the introduction, Cousineau posits, "creativity isn't a luxury, but a necessity - a means of survival..." He later questions the reader about how important creativity, and the ability to express oneself is, in life. The important thing to note is that he has established creativity as a concept with many definitions, reaching across the wide spectrum of adaptability, managing a busy schedule, or also creating a masterpiece of some sort. I believe that creativity is a necessity, and that creative drive or motivation that is in all of us should somehow be exploited. If the world strips you of all your material possessions, what then are you left with? Your imaginative creativity, that's what. It is highly important for all of us, as humans, to maximize our creative potential and open our minds up to the possibility of lowering our creative standards for a brief moment so then later down the road we can be satisfied with whatever else we deem creative.

My second point comes from his quote, which reads, "inspiration is a gift from the back of beyond - a revelation of what separates us from all other species." As Americans,  we generally live an easy life compared to those suffering in developing nations, continually starving and fighting off incurable diseases. But no matter our living conditions, we must ascertain our creative function, and motivate ourselves to tap into those senses so we don't lose sight of what distinguishes our species from all other living creatures. Personally, I don't want to get caught up in daily, mundane activities for the rest of my life. If there is any outlet from which I can draw inspiration, I will make a careful effort to pursue those resources and motivate myself to create something out of them.

Food for thought:
1. In what areas of your life do you cultivate the most creative inspiration?
2. Do you find yourself living a linear life that needs some form of spontaneity?

It's what everyone is talking about at our age.  Do I have enough money to do this?  Specifically, COLLEGE.  As well are all aware, college is expensive.  I hear young parents talk of 'putting this money in little johnny's college funds account'.  But is that the best financial option at this point?  I found an article that gives reasons and benefits from NOT saving money for your children's tuition costs. 

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/6ReasonsNotToSaveForKids.aspx?gt1=33006

This article doesn't diss on helping your children through college, but it implies that over time, things may change and that money may be put to better use toward something else.  The article mentions 'there isn't a loan for retirement'.  -- which is true.  Their are unexpected expenses throughout ones life that that money may need to help with.  I think saving some money can be done, but if a family is suffering financially (especially with the economy in the situation it is) is it worth putting the money in the bank?  Also, what about retirement? That is money you will be living off of when you've decided to take the plung into retirement.   When you think about the big picture, it seems putting these important dollars in the bank to stay for 18 years seems kind of silly.  

It also makes a valid point-- how much appreciation will be shown once someone goes to college-- their parents paying for their tuition VS. the student paying.  Does it seem as if a student making their own way through college would take it more seriously than those who do not? 

From Chapter 5 in the textbook, the authors describe intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.  Intrinsic refers to engaging in one's interests and to one's capacities -- to seek out and master their own personal challenges. Extrinsic motivation comes from environmental incentives-- such as money, awards, etc. In this situation, parents are using extrinsic motivation early in life where it may not be necessary.  They want the best education for their children, ultimately wanting a diploma, aka a better than average job for them.  These extrinsic goals may need to be put aside, even if they are in their child's best interest.   If the person going to college has the desire to fulfill their intrinsic motivation by completing their desired level of education, dont you think they'd find a way to complete school regardless? 

I thought this article was interesting, because I believe their is a lot of stress put on parents of children who want to continue their education in a college or unversity.  I'm not siding with either, because when parents help with tuition it takes a lot of stress off the student.  But should the parents put their own financial situation in jeopardy to do so?

 

It's what everyone is talking about at our age.  Do I have enough money to do this?  Specifically, COLLEGE.  As well are all aware, college is expensive.  I hear young parents talk of 'putting this money in little johnny's college funds account'.  But is that the best financial option at this point?  I found an article that gives reasons and benefits from NOT saving money for your children's tuition costs. 

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/6ReasonsNotToSaveForKids.aspx?gt1=33006

This article doesn't diss on helping your children through college, but it implies that over time, things may change and that money may be put to better use toward something else.  The article mentions 'there isn't a loan for retirement'.  -- which is true.  Their are unexpected expenses throughout ones life that that money may need to help with.  I think saving some money can be done, but if a family is suffering financially (especially with the economy in the situation it is) is it worth putting the money in the bank?  Also, what about retirement? That is money you will be living off of when you've decided to take the plung into retirement.   When you think about the big picture, it seems putting these important dollars in the bank to stay for 18 years seems kind of silly.  

It also makes a valid point-- how much appreciation will be shown once someone goes to college-- their parents paying for their tuition VS. the student paying.  Does it seem as if a student making their own way through college would take it more seriously than those who do not? 

From Chapter 5 in the textbook, the authors describe intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.  Intrinsic refers to engaging in one's interests and to one's capacities -- to seek out and master their own personal challenges. Extrinsic motivation comes from environmental incentives-- such as money, awards, etc. In this situation, parents are using extrinsic motivation early in life where it may not be necessary.  They want the best education for their children, ultimately wanting a diploma, aka a better than average job for them.  These extrinsic goals may need to be put aside, even if they are in their child's best interest.   If the person going to college has the desire to fulfill their intrinsic motivation by completing their desired level of education, dont you think they'd find a way to complete school regardless? 

I thought this article was interesting, because I believe their is a lot of stress put on parents of children who want to continue their education in a college or unversity.  I'm not siding with either, because when parents help with tuition it takes a lot of stress off the student.  But should the parents put their own financial situation in jeopardy to do so?

 

I was recently watching CNN and there was a news piece that involved three people dying after being in a sweat lodge alongside the self-help guru James Ray. The story explained that Ray was a multi-millionaire who built his fortune giving self-help seminars and speeches and had many loyal followers. The sweat lodge was supposed to be a part of his "spiritual warriors" program in which his followers were to sit in a dome-like structure for several hours in a steam room type of atmosphere. The news show explained that witnesses inside the room said that people were going delirious from the heat and getting sick all over the place. While the show made it seem like Ray was inside the sweat lodge with his followers, he did not seem to care about the terror going on around him. For that, he is being charged with manslaughter for the death of three people who ended up dying in the sweat lodge or soon after. This whole news piece struck me as crazy. First of all because these people were brainwashed into thinking this guy knew what he was doing and second because Ray saw what was going on and did nothing to stop it. I can't imagine what emotions were going on inside Ray as he watched people going crazy and dying right before his eyes, or why he didn't think to let these people out. Seeing as how the sweat lodge is supposed to be a spiritual experience, maybe he didn't want to mess with the emotional connections he thought people were experiencing? Maybe he himself was going delirious and thought they were actually being cleansed by the spirits? Could it have been that Ray had such power over these people they trusted him and his eccentric methods? After all, the people that took place in the sweat lodge looked to Ray for motivation and enlightenment in all aspects of their lives, why wouldn't they trust him?
 
I found an article that basically talks about everything the news show did and it can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/04/arizona.sweat.lodge/index.html?hpt=T2  

http://www.breastfriends.com/

Above is the original website of breast friends, which helps many women deal with emotional pain. It also helps motivate women with cancer to fight. It starts with "First I Cry" which is a message welcoming them to sisterhood. "Inside is a silk screened handkerchief with the Breast Friends logo, along with a list of contacts for area support groups and a feedback card." They are told to pass it on to a loved one, whether that being a family member or friend. Secondly there is a match program which pairs women up with others to help cope with cancer...it is a great support group for someone who does not have a support system. Thirdly, they give out hats for women who are having problems with losing their hair. H.A.T.S stands for Healthy Attitude to Survive. Furthermore, they go to a inmate facility to talk to inmates which is a great opportunity for the innmates to open up about their feelings, fears and concerns around cancer. Lastly, breast friends does a workshop: "Thriving Beyond Cancer" which is a four week workshop after the patient has finished treatment.

To read more about breastfriends and how one can help click the link above.

On a January 21st the United State Supreme Court decided to overturn years of legislation. The court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that corporations have a the constitutional right to supply unlimited campaign contributions. The article I have provided a link to is from the Huffington Post. The article states that the top 100 wealthiest corporations would be able to spend as little as 1% of their profit and be about to control the senate and presidential elections. Not to mention the money that the rest of the fortune 500 companies could put toward any campaigns. The amount of control over campaign funds that a corporation can have is now equal to any individual citizen. With large funding, it is inevitable that a corporation will have a say in the platform of any candidate. Though, it is the number of votes an candidate obtains that will inevitably be the deciding factor in the election. If one candidate has purchased all of the advertising and is viewed more frequently than another candidate it is obvious that the candidate will capture more attention than the candidate that does not have the funds to be seen and heard as often. A candidate with a large amount of funding has the change to motivate people and educate people on his/her beliefs and platform. So what's the problem? Take the average family for example, they can donate $500 to a campaign, but not without taking a hit in their bank account. Now imagine a corporation like Walmart, which could donate a million dollars without even feeling the wrath. The donation from the corporation makes the donation from the family seem obsolete. In the end, the campaign winner will effect everyday life of the family and will barely bother the large corporation, yet the corporations can now have a larger say.

http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/930889.html

Fortune magazine listed the top 100 places in the United States to work, its an annual list that is researched and published in the magazine.  Wegmans, a $4.8 billion company that was rated the No. 1 grocery store in the country by Consumer Reports in 2009, was recognized for never having a layoff in its 94-year history.  In 2010, they were ranked top 3rd in the country.  The owners stated in the article that they don't care the ranking, but just the fact that they are on the list gives them excitement. 

There has to be some motivation and motives for being on the list.  How do the owners achieve such success, does the motivation keep them in the circle of success?  Especially in our world of an unpredictable economy, you never know what every day is going to bring, so I could see how there is definitely a motive for being successful and recognized for that success.  One thing that the company noted it does well is it's technique in hiring employees; "the company looks for people with an "innate desire to be helpful, people who can deliver incredible customer service almost instinctively."  The article continues to talk about how the results were gathered through surveys from the workers themselves at random and a culture audit, which was based on diversity, communication, pay, hiring, and benefits.

(Wegmans has 75 stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland ... 11 of them in Western New York. It employs 36,770 people.  "We've prevailed on the list by never taking it for granted. Every year, we celebrate for one day and then spend the rest of the year figuring out how we can do better," McCarthy said)

 

Recalling yesterday's exercise where you broke up into groups and came up with various environmental stimuli, the aroused motive, and the resulting motive-relevant behavior, I'd like you to post a comment detailing out an example (one that we did not cover in class). Imagine a comment from someone who did not participate in yesterday's exercise, and someone who did--the person who did should be able to provide a comment that clearly states the example, terms, and links between them as we did as a group yesterday.

http://resourcesforwriters.suite101.com/article.cfm/interviews_with_murderers

I was inspired to take a deeper look at murderers after reading the "Female Serial Killer" article.  The article states, "As horrible as coming face-to-face with a serial killer may seem to be, there also may be a twisted sense of celebrity associated with that person, as in the case of Bundy."  Just thinking about coming face to face with a murderer makes me cringe, I would definitely be intimidated by them.  Which is the opposite of what you should do.  You need to go in the interview standing strong, just as though you were trying to get a job, be firm, know what you are talking about, know the right questions, etc.  On the opposite spectrum of Bundy was a convicted killer named, Heirens, who comes off as everything but a killer.  Which raises the question is he trying to fool people or is he an innocent man that was sent to prison over a crime he didn't commit.  An interviewer must expect "lies and denial" from these killers during the interview process.