INSTRUCTOR
Dr. Jeff Vancouver, Associate Professor
223 Porter Hall, 593-1071, vancouve@ohio.edu, http://www.psych.ohiou.edu/people/faculty/vancouver
Office Hours: Monday & Wednesday, 3-4 p.m. or by appointment
COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course is designed to enhance critical thinking about theories and research in the area of human motivation. That said, readings and research often involve simpler models of humans (i.e., other animals). Also, issues relating to application will be included.
TEXT
Beck, Robert C. (2000). Motivation: Theories and Principles (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Additional readings assigned (see Calendar of Assignment) will be made available by the instructor.
COURSE FORMAT AND ASSIGNMENTS
Course Format. The course will be taught as a seminar. That means that while the topics are determined by the instructor, the discussion is driven by the students and all are expected to participate. To facilitate this process, several devices will be used. First, students will be expected to state, elaborate, exemplify, and illustrate at least 3 points that are either in the readings assigned for the class that day or that the student develops on their own from the readings (i.e., a point of disagreement or specific reaction to the readings). These points must be typed and two copies brought to each class (format described below). One copy is given to the instructor and the other is kept as reference. At various points during the class the instructor may call on students to discuss one of their points. Efforts will be made to spread this opportunity around to all the students.
In addition, at all times during the discussion a question is being considered. If you cannot determine the question on the floor, raise your hand and ask. Finally, students who have written a "logic of an article" paper (see below) for one of the articles of the day are expected to facilitate discussion of that article.
Concept papers (Format): For each three points emanating from the readings in the class write-ups must include the following parts, with subheadings for easy identification:
•State the point: Use your own words, not the words found in the readings.
•Elaborate on the point: In your own words, describe the meaning of the point.
•Exemplify the point: Provide an example of the point you have observed in yourself or others.
•Illustrate the point: Use a diagram, map, metaphor
or analogy to describe what the point is like.
The quality of these papers will be assessed on a 3-point scale ( = unacceptable; = passable; = good). These translate to a 0, 1, or 2, respectively.
The Logic of an Article paper. By the second class, you need to choose one of the readings listed in the Calendar of Assignments that you will evaluate (come with a couple in mind in case someone else takes your first couple of choices). The write-up should follow the "template for analyzing the logic of an article" provided. The paper should be approximately 2-3 pages, double-spaced. The paper is due the day the article is assigned (2 copies). You will also be expected to contribute aspects of your analysis to the class.
The Logic of Motivation paper. Using the same concepts (or elements of thought) used to evaluate the logic of a paper, you will evaluate the logic of motivation. The paper should be approximately 2-3 pages, double-spaced. During the final exam period, each student will share their logic of motivation paper, with the purpose of developing a single document.
Quality of Theory Paper. There are fairly universal standards for evaluating the quality of thought. These are listed in the "Universal Intellectual Standards Guide." Use the guide to evaluate a contemporary theory of motivation (i.e., the theory is still considered viable). The paper should be no more than 10 pages, double-spaced (not including references). Care should be taken to read and incorporate work from the original proponents, defenders and detractors of the theory. It should also include a central quote from one of the theory proponents and one of the theory detractors. It should describe empirical evidence supporting and, if available, refuting the theory. It is due on the last day of class (i.e., the day of the final), but earlier drafts will be accepted for critique by the instructor.
Evaluation. Your grade for the course will be based on the following:
Concept papers 35%
Logic of an article paper 10%
Logic of motivation paper 10%
Quality of theory paper 15%
Participation 30%
Jan. 6 Introduction and Overview Beck - chapter 1
Jan. 8 Emotion Beck - chapter 2
Cacioppo, J .T. & Bernston, G. G. (1999). The affect system: Architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 133-137.
Jan. 13 Instincts Beck - chapter 3
Tinbergen, N. (1951). An attempt at a synthesis. The Study of Instinct (chap 5). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BeKay, W. T. & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 184-189.
Jan. 15 Eating Beck - chapter 4
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The general features of bodily stabilization. The Wisdom of the Body (Chap. 17, 268-268). W. W. Norton and Co.
Seeley, R. J. & Schwartz, M. W. (1997). The regulation of energy balance: Peripheral hormonal signals and hypothalamic neuropeptides. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 39-44.
De Castro, J. M. (1993). The effects of the spontaneous ingestion of particular foods or beverages on the meal patten and overall nutrient intake of humans. Physiology & Behavior, 53, 1133-1144.
Berridge, K. C. & Robinson, T. E. (1995). The mind of an addicted brain: Neural sensitization of wanting versus liking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 71-76.
Jan. 20 Drinking, etc. Beck - Chapter 5
Hall, W. G., Arnold, J. M., & Myers, K. P. (2000). The acquisition of an appetite. Psychological Science, 11, 101-105.
Gladue, B. A. (1994). The biopsychology of sexual orientation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 150- 154.
Jan. 22 MLK day (no class)
Jan. 27 Theories of internal regulation Beck - chapter 6
Hull, C. L. (1943). Characteristics of innate behavior under conditions of need. Principles of Behavior (Chap. 5). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System). Psychological Review, 62, 243-254.
Jan. 29 Rewards as reinforcers Beck - Chapter 7
Covington, M. V. (2000). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation in schools: A reconciliation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 22-25.
Feb. 3 Rewards as incentives Beck - Chapter 8
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Behavior, a molar phenomenon. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men (Chap. 1, 3-23). The Century Company.
Feb. 5 Escape, etc. Beck - Chapter 9
Miller, N. E. (1948). Studies of fear as an acquirable drive. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 89-101.
Feb. 10 Reward systems in practice none
Lawler, E. E., III (1987). The design of effective reward systems. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp.225-271). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohn, A. 1993. Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 54-63.
Kerr, S. (1995). On the Folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 7-14.
Jenkens, G. D., Jr., Mitra, A, Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
Feb. 12 Personality Beck - Chapter 12
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). Toward a theory of motivation. The Achievement Motive (pp. 27-67). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ayduk, O., Mischel, W., Downey, G. (2002). Attentional mechanisms linking rejection to hostile reactivity: The role of "hot" versus "cool" focus. Psychological Science, 13, 443-448.
Feb. 17 Attitudes Beck - Chapter 13
Arkes, H . R. (1996). The temperature of Diff Con theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 268-271.
Mellers, B. A. McGraw, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 210-214.
Tetlock, P. E. & Levi, A. (1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68-88.
Feb. 19 Applied Motivation Beck - Chapter 15 (pp. 400-411)
Katzell, R. A., Thompson, D. E. Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144-153.
Van Eerde, W. & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575-586.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240-245.
Feb. 24 Self-regulation Theories of Applied Motivation
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Nelson, T. D. (1993). The hierarchical organization of behavior: A useful feedback model of self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 121-126.
Duchon, A. P. & Warren, W. H., Jr. (2002). A visual equalization strategy for locomotor control: Of honeybees, robots, and humans. Psychological Science, 13, 272-278.
Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Self-regulation in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: A tale of two paradigms. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 303-341). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Feb. 26 Social Cognitive Theory versus Control Theory
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M. Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506-516.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A., (in press). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Vancouver, J. B. (2003). The Depth of History and Explanation as Benefit and Bane for Psychological Control Theories. Revised and resubmitted to Journal of Applied Psychology.
Mar. 3 Interpersonal Attraction Beck - Chapter 14
Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Pederson, W. C. (2002). Men's and women's mating preferences: Distinct evolutionary mechanisms? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 88-93.
Mar. 5 Frustration, etc. Beck - Chapter 10
Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 115-118.
Mar. 10 Aggression & Altruism Beck - Chapter 11
Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.
McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 79-82.
Mar. 12 Applied Motivation Beck - Chapter 15 (pp. 411-427)
Vancouver, J. B. & Scherbaum, C. A., (2002). An Integrative Self-Regulation Theory of Work Motivation. Revised and resubmitted to Academy of Management Review.
Mar. 18 (12:20-2:10) Final Exam time Logic of Motivation paper presentations