Росiйськомовна адаптацiя методики задоволеностi базових психологiчных потреб на украïнськiй та росiйськiй выбiрцi
Psychology of motivation is a very special field of psychological inquiry – highly, and even intimately important for everyone and still very fragmented and obscure, despite its centennial history. It was not always made a separate field during this history. A period of much theoretical interest in motivation directly connected with the fascination of the riddle of human nature through the first half of the 20th century was followed after the Second World War by decades of disappointment in general theory, narrow specialization of research and straightforward methodological rigorism. The field of motivation was occupied by cognitive revolutionaries, split into pieces and largely dissolved in other problems, such as learning, personnel management, psychotherapy, etc. In the last couple of decades this field seems to “reemerge” (Ryan, 2007). Among the factors of this reemergence R. Ryan mentioned a renewed interest to human nature, the rapid growth of cross-cultural psychology, new positive emphasis in research agenda, attention to profound existential issues, the discovery of sophisticated brain mechanisms of higher regulations, etc. Due to all these developments the psychology of motivation is now less than totally bound with old Manichean dichotomies like cognition vs. affect, conscious vs. unconscious, internal vs. external, etc. that now seem strongly delimiting if not misleading. It is less concerned with distinguishing easily measurable stable (that is, static) dispositional variables and attempts to get a better idea of the involved processes, relationships and complex systems.
The chapter presents an attempt to answer the basic question of the motivational roots of human activity in terms of varied principles and systems of activity regulation. Regulation is treated as the general principle explaining the capacity of living systems to move from less desirable outcomes to more desirable ones, based on feedback evaluated against the criteria of the desirable and causing corrections of the current activity. Forms of regulation may be of different complexity and subordinated to different kinds of criteria. The author offers a theoretical classification of possible logics of human regulation, each of them being an elementary mechanism; the proposed multiregulation personality model suggests that the whole system of individual autoregulation is made by the combination of the described elementary mechanisms in individually varied proportions that accounts for the qualitative interindividual differences.
The chapter presents a theoretical analysis of applications of the concept of meaning in the psychology of motivation. The history of this concept in psychology and especially psychology of motivation is traced with special emphasis on the two most elaborated general theories of motivation where the concept of meaning is central: J. Nuttin’s relational theory of human conduct and A.N. Leontiev’s activity theory approach. In the present-day context, the relevance of the meaning concept for attributional theories of motivation and action regulation is discussed. Personal meaning may fulfill the role of common denominator for many special models of motivation linking them together as well as with more general theoretical contexts and other problem fields.
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences
We created a life-goal assessment drawing from self-determination theory and achievement goal literature, examining its predictive power regarding immoral behavior and subjective well-being. Our source items assessed direction and energization of motivation, via the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic aims and between intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for acting, respectively. Fused source items assessed four goal complexes representing a combination of direction and energization. Across three studies (Ns = 109, 121, and 398), the extrinsic aim/extrinsic reason complex was consistently associated with immoral and/or unethical behavior beyond four source and three other goal complex variables. This was consistent with the triangle model of responsibility’s claim that immoral behaviors may result when individuals disengage the self from moral prescriptions. The extrinsic/extrinsic complex also predicted lower subjective well-being, albeit less consistently. Our goal complex approach sheds light on how self-determination theory’s goal contents and organismic integration mini-theories interact, particularly with respect to unethical behavior.