Theories of Reward and Motivation

Theories of reciprocate and motivepsychological science, derived from ancient Greek roots psyche and logos, which marrow mind and knowledge or study respectively, is defined as the scientific study of behaviour and mental processes, in which the behaviour refers to anything we do (Coon Mitterer, 2012, p. 14). Psychologists uses organized observation to gather empirical evidence to derive a scientific conjecture. Not until 130 years ago, when William Wundt set up a search lab to study conscious experience in a scientific manner, that psychological science started as a science (Coon Mitterer, 2012, p. 26). For thousands of years individuals tolerate been informally watch man behaviours. Recently, numerous individuals claim that the theories on human behaviours and mental processes psychologists had invested much time and effort to discover atomic number 18 merely common sense impression (Coon Mitterer, 2012, p. 15). For instance, cognitive process can be improved by crowing rewards, is a common sense that society perceive as the truth. However, the act of raise performance by giving rewards to individual is confined within a small social circle, or are derived from a persons attempt to make sense out of their physical world (Qian Guzzetti, 2000, p. 1). The higher(prenominal) the value of rewards, the higher the drive levels or motivation of an individual, the better the results achieved. Rewards are generally attractive to people, and hence would force them to put in effort to obtain it. This wrong common sense theory which still persists today, giving rewards, especially clobber rewards, will enhance wizs performance, is inaccurate.This theory is first rejected by Sam Glucksberg in his experiment. In Glucksbergs (1964) investigate, he investigated the influence of strength of drive (motivation) on functional immutability strength, which is defined as a type of cognitive bias that involves a tendency to see objects as only working in a particular way (Cherry, n.d.). Glucksberg seek to prove that rewards do not stick out an increase in problem-solving time. In his experiment, Glucksberg set up different scenarios to match the effect of rewards A group of people were tested for time back awayn to solve problem when offered incentives, and an another(prenominal) when incentives are not offered. These two groups were and so divided into further subgroups where the subjects put into test in two other scenarios when the solution is more(prenominal) straightforward and when the solution requires more thought process. This ensured that in that respect was no biasedness in the experiment and that the increase in functional stationariness strength was only collect to increase in drive levels. through and through this experiment, it was concluded that participants used relatively longer time to solve problems requiring more thought process when given rewards. Also, in his research, Glucksberg concluded that there was no effect of rewards on an individual when the solution to the problem is straight forward. homogeneous timings were recorded and the difference are relatively smaller as compared to those of mingled problem solving. Throughout many years, numerous researches upon this topic had been conducted and they concluded with the identical observation (e.g. Bijleveld, Custers, Aarts, 2011 Hagger Chatzisarantis, 2011 Jordon, 1986 Panagopoulos, 2013).In the society, economists generally believes that incentives enhances performance (Panagopoulos, 2013, p. 266). To this day, it has been proven many times by psychological researches, which suggest the opposite to this theory. While this is true in some cases, for example, when the problem is simple and only requires memory work or has a straight forward solution (Bijleveld, Custers, Aarts, 2011, p. 865), it does not work in others. Rewards function as a barrier when individuals are faced with mazy problem-solving capers. Material r ewards stale an individuals ability to solve decomposable problems (Glucksberg, 1964). Glucksberg (1964), concluded in his research that rewards influence drive levels and hence cross problem-solving performance. Similarly, research has also shown that m whizztary incentives not only does not improves integritys performance, it might cause drastic results as well (Bijleveld, Custers, Aarts, 2011). When introduced to the monetary rewards consciously, individuals tend to consciously reflect on the reward, and hence thwart ones performance (Bijleveld, Custers, Aarts, 2011). This research has refute the effectiveness of a justly motivator money. Several research also assess the effect of material rewards on motivation, and results turn out to be undesirable as it rattling undermines it (e.g., Hagger Chatzisarantis, 2011 Jordon, 1986). Hence giving rewards does not enhance performance in many cases.The fact that giving rewards does not enhance, or might harm performance can be explained psychologically. Individuals are unable to focus on the task when given rewards. Bijleveld, Custers and Aarts (2011) indicates that consciously perceived rewards cause people to reflect on what is at stake, hence prompt people to more strongly rivet on task stimuli and details. However, being too focussed in the task can be harmful to an individuals performance. Enhanced ducking might interfere with thought process and hence effective performance, for example, bear upon of unnecessary and irrelevant ideas, hence thwart the enhancement of performance (p.866). mien of distractions is a reason throne divided attention, which causes problem solving cannot take place effectively. This supports the consistent finding where rewards do not result in higher performance. This can also be explained by a research done by Olivers and Nieuwenhuis (2006), that such(prenominal) distractions from the main problem is due to an overinvestment of attentional resources in stimulus process ing, a suboptimal processing mode that can be counteracted by manipulations promoting divided attention (p. 364). Hence, increased focus and concentration due to higher motivation levels, can hurt performance.It is not uncommon to observe individuals being motivated by rewards. This might be the source of the theory. However, such observations are confined to a certain fixed situation in the individuals social setting. In this kind of observation, individuals tend to vitiate taking into account of situations which is inconsistent with their findings (Taylor Kowalski, 2004). They are easily refuted by experiments and research as they are conducted systematically and did not come from mere human observation. Various scenarios and control experiment are involved to ensure that the results have no room for disputes. Differing from the flawed common sense theory of human behaviour, the results which proved that rewards does not enhance performance are unchallengeable as they are suppor ted by facts which can be tested and reiterated by professionals (Coon Mitterer, 2012). Only by involving in psychological research can one actually see a fair and non-biased perspective of human behaviour. Reasons behind thwart performance can be explained scientifically through experiments. They are supported by the science behind human behaviour. Therefore rewards does not give, or rather impair performance.ReferencesBijleveld, E., Custers, R., Aarts, H. (2011). Once the money is in masses Distinctive do of conscious and unconscious rewards on task performance. ledger of Experimental Social psychological science, 47, 865-869.Cherry, K. (n.d.). What is Functional Fixedness in Psychology? Retrieved from Psychology Complete Guide to Psychology for Students, Educators Enthusiasts http//psychology.about.com/od/problemsolving/f/functional-fixedness.htmCoon, D., Mitterer, J. (2012). Introduction to Psychology Active learning through modules. Wadsworth, Ohio Cengage Learning.Gluc ksberg, S. (1964). Problem solving Response arguing and the influence of drive. Psychological Reports, 15, 939-942.Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2011). Causality orientations moderate the undermining effect of rewards on inbred motivation. diary of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 485-489.Jordon, P. C. (1986). Effects of an extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation A field experiment. Academy Of Management, 29(2), 405-412.Olivers, C. N., Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive effect, and instruction on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 32, 364-379.Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation and Voting. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 266-280.Qian, G., Guzzetti, B. (2000). Conceptual change learning A multidimentional lens. Reading writing Quarterly, 1-3.Taylor, A., Kowalski, P. (2004). Naive psychological science The prevalence, strength, and so urces of misconceptions. The Psychological Record, 54(1), 15-25.Neo Ruo Ting