Psychologists’ view on origin of motivation
Motivation in sports fluctuates from time and from individual to individual. Its unpredictability has seen many mediocre sportsmen turn into champions and heroes while great sportsmen turn into mediocre villains. The complexity of motivation has led to several psychologists coming up with various explanations on the source of motivation.
As early as 1889, psychologists such as Norman Triplett had posited that motivation is as result of social setting (Triplett, 1898; Carlson & Heth, 2009). Even though several years later many psychologists also tried to explain what causes motivation or lack of it from various viewpoints, one thing they unanimously agreed on was that human beings have no control over their motivation process at some point. The debates aside, motivation stems from both our biological make up and experience (Harrnstein, 1972; Maslow, 1987).
Theories on motivation
One theory on motivation is the goal setting-theory which postulates that many people are driven to success measured by finally reaching the desired definite end. Such individuals will work to achieve these goals especially if they are moderate in nature. This is because optimal drive to succeed is achieved as low or too high goals will only work to discourage the individual. That is, he will be driven to success by the close proximity and yet uncertainty of success which is very specific.
Thus, tasks which are very specific, with moderate difficulty and proximity will be more motivating than those which are general and too difficult to achieve. Setting of goals is only possible because human beings have self determination to succeed. This is what is postulated by the self-determination theory to explain what drives human beings to achieve.
This theory opines that humans are inherently driven to grow and develop and hence our source of motivation is somewhat inborn. However, this theory recognizes the role of external factors as the main activators of this innate drive to succeed. The need to control the events of our lives in order to feel connected to others and be competent in our skills is the primary sources of our motivation.
Hence, human beings are able to control their thoughts and conscious and channel them towards striving for excellence (Murphy, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, we are able to control our desires for success, and feelings of pleasure and acceptance (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
The Need hierarchy theory of motivation states that human beings are only driven to success by those needs which they have not satisfied. Since, human beings have complex needs, they are satisfied from bottom up with those on the higher levels satisfied first. As one moves up the hierarchy of needs, the drive to achieve increases. Thus, the drive that an individual has for quenching his thirst or filling an empty stomach is lower compared to that of achieving his full potential or self actualization which is the highest level of need.
The Incentive theory of motivation cuts across various theories of motivation. It somewhat incorporates all these theories in a bid to explain the complexity of motivation. Incentives to move to greater heights can come in various forms. Others can be intrinsic while others can be extrinsic but they all act as incentives towards success. Satisfaction achieved from participating in activities gives us the feeling of pleasure and acceptance.
This can be encouraging enough to drive us to success. The rewards of pleasure and acceptance are usually intrinsic as postulated by self-determination theory. External stimuli activate these internal stimuli. However, it has to be noted that external and internal stimuli sometimes work antagonistically.
Continued usage of external stimuli as a source of motivation may eventually replace the innate drive to succeed. Like sportsmen, we have an intrinsic desire to win, improve ourselves and learn new ideas. On the other hand, extrinsically we can be driven by the desire having rewards such as medals, promotion and money among others. When such rewards are not forthcoming, we may lose our motivation. (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Carver & Scheier, 2001).
However, when an external stimulus is introduced, they lose their autonomy. And when such stimulus is withdrawn, our motivation slumps. Conversely, such external rewards as trophies, scholarships, medals and money may be so ingrained in us that they become more or less part of us. Hence, we will go a great length to achieve them.
In this scenario, such external stimuli almost become intrinsic because failure to attain them will only push us to work harder, thereby, raising our motivation. Such external stimuli, when achieved would become part and parcel of our growth, hence becoming a ‘biological need’. Because intrinsic stimuli are not always a guarantee, there is need to find a suitable extrinsic stimuli to drive us to success. This should be done with caution though as over usage of external stimuli may eventually replace internal stimuli.
Self-efficacy and self-esteem as motivators
However, sometimes we lack both stimuli. Thus, we will not make any attempt to participate in any activity even though we might be assured of success. Our lack of motivation can be attributed to lack of or low self-esteem and lack of or low self-efficacy.
With self-efficacy, we are able to carry out a self evaluation of our capabilities to achieve any goal of any difficulty and even without a glimmer of hope of succeeding. More, we can have the drive even if the goals are not clear. (Ormrod, 2006; Bandura, 1997). When we have high self-efficacy levels we are highly driven, hence will always go an extra mile to achieve success.
Contrarily, low self-efficacy levels lead to low motivation as the lack self belief is vital for motivation and achieving success. Self-efficacy is more of being overconfident (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005) which many people have spoken ill of. When properly utilized, overconfidence can motivate us to success rather lead to our downfall as many believe. However, there is a difference between being overconfident and feeling good one’s self which is termed as self-esteem (Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1975).
Feeling good does have the element of the sense of belonging that can effectively and strongly drive an individual to success. The competitive nature of life’s challenges requires more than just feeling good; the pain of losing, the joy of winning and the long strenuous hours of practice demand commitment and consistency that can only be achieved through high motivation.
Ego and goal-orientation as motivators
One can only be moved to action by self-esteem; however, to sustain the action despite the challenges, one needs goals to achieve. Such goals can only be set when an individual has high self-efficacy. Like an overconfident individual, egoistic people have been shunned for most people to believe that their ego will cloud their judgment.
However, the ego can be a greater motivator as we would always want to be the best. This is unlike a goal oriented individual who would go to a great length to learn something new and grow. Indeed, an individual who is able to find a common ground between being goal oriented and ego oriented would, however, be more successful (Walle, 1997; Locke & Latham, 2006).
Conclusions
Due to the critical role that motivation plays in the success in our lives, it is important for us to understand what motivates us. We should be able to classify stimuli as extrinsic or intrinsic. Such information is very important as it will help us in mapping out appropriate action plans in our lives and formulate ways in dealing with those times when we are lowly or highly motivated (The British Psychological Society).
However, we should take charge of our own lives and motivational processes by changing our attitudes, cutting a niche for ourselves in the environment we live in and become actively involved in the activities we engage in. Moreover, concentrating on the positive things, praising others and staying around motivated teammates will be a great boost.
Limitations of the article and how to improve the article
These theories on motivation in life few lack of corroborating evidence to support their numerous points of view. Even though psychologists argue their cases effectively, they do not cite other researchers to affirm their cases. Moreover, they do not use real life scenarios to prove the validity of most of their assertions. Thus, there need to carry out more research studies into the causes of motivation.
They studies should extend into other numerous fields other life, education, business and sports. Moreover, there is overemphasis on motivation as the sole driver of life ignoring other aspects such as spirituality. Success in life does not entirely depend on motivation as many spiritual leaders and people believe that to succeed in life; we need the divine power that comes from God.
There is need to study the psychology of those who entirely believe in spirituality as the drive to success. In addition, since there is continued use of performance enhancing drugs amongst many sportsmen, there is need to study their psychology and what drives them into using such drugs to improve their performance.
References
Alexander, P., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions”. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R., & Vohs, K. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Carlson, N. R., & Heth, C.D. (2009). Psychology the Science of Behavior. Toronto: Pearson Education.
Carver, C., & Scheier, F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eliot, J. Motivation: The Need to Achieve. In: Murphy, S. (1957). The Sport Psych Handbook. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harrnstein, J. (1972). “Nature as Nurture: Behaviorism and the Instinct Doctrine”. Behavior 1 (1): 23–52.
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbet, R. (1973). “Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Reward; A Test of ‘Overjustification’ Hypothesis”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28: 129‐37.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). “New directions in goal-setting theory”. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15: 265-268.
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). “Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behavior (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and Personality. New York: Pearson Education.
Murphy, J. (2009). Inner Excellence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
Ryan, R., & Deci, L. (2000). “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being”. American Psychologist.
The British Psychological Society. (n.d). Becoming an Educational Psychologist. Web.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9: 507-533.
Wigfield, A., et al. (2004). “Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences”. The Journal of Educational Research, 97: 299-309.
Walle, D. (1997). “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8: 995-1015.