Key points in the article
The article presents three important points in its submission. Murray and Holmes (2009) begin by exploring what they refer to as the four underlying principles that are crucial in motivation management. According to the authors, these principles assist in explaining the theory behind mutual responsiveness, especially when two or more personalities are compared under different circumstances. The first principle states that conflict of interest may be inevitable especially in cases where two or more people are close together or often find themselves torn between performing a particular duty instead of leaving it to the other person. To be specific, the authors make use of a vivid example of a model couple, Harry and Sally.
Effective motivation management presents the second principle as the one which addresses the need of optimizing gains made while at the same time minimizing losses as much as possible. When partners (especially those who are married) are pursuing certain objectives together, the second principle is paramount. When they find themselves in such a fix, at least one of them ought to ignore personal interests that are too selfish and may jeopardize the other.
Mechanisms that coordinate trust in human psychology forms the third principle. Partners in a marital relationship are generally perceived to be interdependent in several areas of their life. The fourth principle states that the degree to which rules on the procedure can be accessed and used to coordinate trust and dedication between partners is often dynamic so as to be compatible with the risks which each partner in a relationship comes across in certain situations.
Finally, the applications of the model are outlined in the last section of the submission. In applying the model to real-life situations, the four principles are duly made use of. Married partners are used as case examples. For instance, the experience of partners on issues surrounding commitment and trust is deeply explored in terms of how they are anticipated in real situations. These experiences have also been found to be dynamic; they keep on changing from time to time. Hence, partners will often rely on each other to be motivated. In addition, the authors put into application the query on how relationships can be influenced or even affected by personality or vice versa. The two elements (personality and relationships) have been found to be interdependent. Moreover, the explanation behind the failure or success of certain relationships has been expounded using what the authors have referred to as regular and controlled processes.
Strengths and weaknesses
One of the strongest points in the article is that the subject matter is indeed appropriate and applicable to the issue under discussion. The topic “The Architecture of Interdependent Minds: A Motivation-Management Theory of Mutual Responsiveness” (Murray & Holmes, 2009) has been intensively explored in the body of the article and also backed up with pertinent citations from a variety of sources. Besides, each of the subdomains of the topic has been vividly discussed and as a result, it is quite easy for the reader to follow through. The organization of the entire content of the article is also coherent. In cases where confusion and understanding of the piece may arise, the authors have made use of illustrations in form of diagrams. While reading through the content of the article, the reader is left with a feeling of being talked to and not talked down. Finally, the application part of the management motivation theory discussed dresses up the whole article and consequently, the reader is capable of appreciating the importance of the written piece by relating the theories and principles against real-life applications.
However, the article presents on major weakness in terms of the methodology used to gather research evidence on the subject of the interdependent mind. Most of the evidence presented throughout the article is based on secondary sources and not primary research data that can be compared to other previous studies. The authenticity of the facts or theories highlighted in the article would have been more profound if primary research data were integrated as part of the subject matter.
Reflection on the article
Firstly, it is a definite fact that personality differences do exist between partners in any form of social relationship. It is also imperative to reiterate that personality and relationships influence each other in a myriad of ways. Nonetheless, the reader is left wondering whether the four principles of motivation management theory as expounded by Murray and Holmes (2009) in the article give an appropriate explanation on the link between the two elements. Although trust is paramount in any motivation management, the five prompts that individuals monitor in others before they can gain trust in them may not necessarily be completed under normal circumstances and in an ideal case. Leder (2009) tends to differ slightly with this line of thinking. He argues out that the five classes of indicators people use to establish trust in others and especially those whom they are in a relationship may be bypassed by other events or circumstances. For instance, an important sacrifice by a partner may be done in bad faith aimed at winning the trust of another person. Some partners in relationships may not readily trust others on the basis of sacrifice following past horrible experiences. Then, what cue should we use to gather trust from others? Are our values and barriers sufficient signals to trust? Or better still, should partners trust each other so long as they are equally worthy? These are just but some of the questions worth discussing when articulating the cause and effect of trust in relationships.
When motivation management theory is put into application, then the proposed model makes more sense especially in regard to mutual responsiveness in adult relationships. Indeed, the model acts as a viable tool for conjecturing the stability of relationships as well as how satisfying such partnerships can be. It is indeed factual that partners in a relationship will largely value satisfaction and lack of it may as well be the dead-end of the existing affair. The authors have explored motivational interdependence and the relative factors that influence satisfaction. However, the anticipation when a relationship may experience either automatic or regulated behavioral patterns is quite a tricky bearing in mind that such a prediction using the proposed model may be jeopardized by secondary factors such as persistence of a partner to stick to a relationship irrespective of the prevailing situation especially in cases where the decision remains to be the best alternative at that given time (Leder, 2009).
References
Leder, S. (2009). “Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256–278.
Murray, S. L and Holmes, J.G. (2009). “The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness”. Psychological Review, 116, 908-928.