Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T03:10:30.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mental computational processes have always been an integral part of motivation science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

Michael Richter Open the ORCID record for Michael Richter [Opens in a new window]  and
Guido H. E. Gendolla Open the ORCID record for Guido H. E. Gendolla [Opens in a new window]
Michael Richter*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Effort Lab, School of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK [email protected] www.effortlab.website
Guido H. E. Gendolla
Affiliation:
Geneva Motivation Lab, FPSE, Section of Psychology & Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland [email protected] www.unige.ch/motivation
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some constructs in motivation science are certainly underdeveloped and some motivation researchers may work with underspecified constructs, as suggested by Murayama and Jach (M&J). However, this is not indicative of a general problem in motivation science. Many motivation theories focus on specific mechanisms underlying motivated behavior and thus have already adopted the computational process perspective that M&J call for.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e41
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Nassrelgrgawi, A. S. (2016). Performance, incentives, and needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: A meta-analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 781–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9578-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kukla, A. (1972). Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review, 79, 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896. https://doi.org/10.1086/218177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In Hunt, J. M. (ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 333–378). Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion. Wiley.Google Scholar
Richter, M. (2013). A closer look into the multi-layer structure of motivational intensity theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guildford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.Google Scholar