Course Content

Most theories include some level of both (some nature, some nurture). However, instinct theory is the only theory that I know about that completely emphasizes biology.

Instinct Theory states that motivation is the result of biological, genetic programming. Thus, all beings within a species are programmed for the same motivations.

 At the heart of this perspective, is the motivation to survive  – i.e., we are all biologically programmed to survive. And, all of our behaviors and motivations stem from biological programming (i.e., we all seek pleasure and avoid pain) Thus, are actions are instincts.

Which learning theory is at least partially based on this conceptualization of motivation…. quick .. quick.. what is the first thing that pops into your mind???? Ok, all you ‘Pavlovians’ out there… Yes!!!! BEHAVIORISM!!!!!! Ding ding ding.. that’s the inner voice in us… you all must be salivating right now!!!! (sorry for the pun)

Ok, back to work….

A human mother, unlike most other species, will stay awake with a crying infant all night long trying to provide comfort. Why? Instinct theory suggests that she is programmed to behave in this manner — it is not due to learning or conditioning, not to being raised properly or poorly, not to having strong female role models or weak role models, or anything else, other that pure biology… ok so I just contradicted myself here….. but it goes deeper than that…

This perspective is very much the sort that was offered recently in the controversial article that stated that parents don’t matter that much in the development of their children.

William McDougal (1908), an influential theorist, viewed instincts as behavior patterns that are:

• unlearned
• uniform in expression
• universal in a species

For example, within a species of birds, all the members may build identical nests and work in the same ways. This is true even for those birds of that species born and raised in captivity and isolation, and thus could not have learned the appropriate nest building behavior from other, experienced role model birds.

So now we are approaching what I coined: ‘inspitivism theory’.. that kids learn IN SPITE of our efforts!!

McDougal carried it a step further by stating that humans are the same and have instincts for behaviors such as: parenting, submission, jealousy, mating, and more.

There are problems with this thinking

Sorry but we are not off the hook here. We probably actually need to teach kids in spite of (sorry for the pun) our instincts otherwise:

• theorists have never been able to agree on a list of instincts; Many instincts are NOT universal and seem to be more dependent on individual differences (for example, jealousy. Not all humans exhibit the same jealously levels, behaviors, etc.).
• instinct theory has a more biological emphasis for specific motives and not all (like aggression and sex). But, there is still a strong instinct perspective in the study of animals (ethology).

This is the study of genetic and evolutionary bases of behavior in all organisms, including humans. This view spawned from instinct theory, but it is not purely an instinct theory.

 Sociobiology states that natural selection favors social behaviors that maximize reproductive success . Thus, the primary motivating force for living organisms (including humans) is to pass on our genes from one generation to the next.

It sounds like a stretch but this in many ways is the thought process behind Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

This theory, inspired by Charles Darwin, argues that in the last 15 million years the human species has evolved socially as well as physically. Through the process of natural selection, individuals who were even slightly predisposed to engage in adaptive social behaviors were the “fittest” and tended to survive longer and to be more successful in passing their genes along to future generations. Over countless generations, this selection process weeded out individuals who lacked these predispositions and those who possessed them prospered. Even though these tendencies may not enhance our fitness in today’s world, eons spent in harsher environments have left us genetically predisposed to perform certain social behaviors when situational cues call forth ancient instincts.

Instinct theory argued that people try to survive, and that any quality that increases survival will eventually become genetically based. However, sociobiology has changed this view slightly by arguing that the organism’s fundamental goal is not mere survival, or even the survival of its offspring. Rather, the fittest individual is the one that succeeds in passing the maximum number of genes on to the next generation. Why, for example, do animals go to all the trouble of breeding and raising offspring?

Because having children is an extremely effective means of ensuring the survival of one’s genes in a future generation. Caring for offspring may seem self-sacrificing, but these actions are prompted by the gene’s selfish tendency to seek survival at all costs. Even if the parent perishes protecting its young, its genes will continue to flourish in its offspring. To Darwin, the fittest animal is the one that can survive longest. To Hamilton, the fittest animal is the one that maximizes the survival of its genes in future generations.

Is the need to create a social system that teaches our young new (and proper) behaviors be based on the need to survive? So in this macro level we are looking at the motivation to set up socialized (i.e., ‘socially based’) teaching ‘institutions”.

This perspective explain motives such as competition, aggression, sexual activity, and dominance. (in other words, using your ‘red pen’ as a teacher/instructor to cause your students to avoid pain and seek pleasure?)

This is also the basis for some of the thinking on ‘opposites attract” and others, and we even have gotten to the point of observing that human computer interfaces (HCI) can emulate these preferences in the exact same way. If you do not believe me, seek out Reeves and Nast’s seminal work: The Media Equation.. go ahead.. Google it… OR you can learn all about it in Interactive Learning Environments (EME6465).

Is this the ultimate in selfishness?

This perspective may seem selfish, but it can also explain seemingly altruistic behaviors:

• A Blackbird will risk death to signal the flock that a hawk (a predator) is nearby. In so doing, the Blackbird increases its chance of getting killed, but also increases the chances of the other Blackbirds surviving and, therefore, increasing the odds that more genes will be passed on.
• An organism will risk its own life to keep the possibility of passing on familial genes alive. Others of the same genetic strain will survive and keep the gene pool going even if that particular bird does not.

In short, while this may be a selfish perspective, it does have the potential to produce remarkably unselfish behavior.
So… what about the idea that folks love to ‘share’ things on Facebook, You Tube.. what about open source software and freeware etc?

Most organisms seem to try and maintain Homeostasis — a state of physiological equilibrium.

Wow!!!! What a set up for Piaget!!!! I couldn’t have said it better myself.. oh, that’s right, I just did!!!!

For example, we have a homeostatic temperature of 98.6 degrees (F). If this temperature begins to waiver enough you have a number of possible autonomic responses: if temperature increases, you perspire. If temperature decreases, you shiver.

So, when you experience a drive, you are motivated to reduce this state of tension and pursue actions that will lead to a drive reduction (reduce the state of tension). By the way, this is also the basis for story and transformation in the story invention construct….just my ‘commercial’ for the narrative based curriculum.

For Example – hunger leads to physical discomfort (internal tension – drive), which leads to the motivation to get food, which leads to eating, which leads to a reduction in physical tension (drive reduction), which finally leads to the restoration of equilibrium. (Again seems like an off-shoot of the old seek pleasure avoid pain thing)

Some Problems

• homeostasis seems irrelevant/contra-indicative to some human motives – “thirst for knowledge”…(what the heck is that?) No Child Left Behind anyone? Ok, I digress….
• motivation may exist without a drive arousal. For example, humans do not eat only when they are hungry. Don’t believe me? Ever go out for a nice dinner, eat enough to be full, but then still decide to have that great chocolate desert anyway? I thought so.

So does this all say that we sometimes learn simply because we are bored or ‘conditioned’ to learn? What DOES it say?

 An incentive may be defined as an external goal that has the capacity to motivate behavior . This does not mean that it will always motivate behavior, only that it can.

Now, we get to a situation in which we can see a difference with previous theories:

Drive theory acts by an internal state pushing you in a specific direction. However, incentive theory acts when an external stimulus pulls you in a certain direction.

(Internal versus external motivation!!!! we may have hit on something great here!!!!)

This is directly related to Skinner. Here we can see a move away from biological influence toward the environment and its influence on behavior. You attend class not because you were biologically programmed to become a student, but rather, because there is something external that is rewarding to you. Is it the grade you seek? Is it the desire to avoid going into the job market? Is it the desire to obtain a better job with a degree than possible without one? Regardless which it is, the idea is that the motivation is something external, not internal.

This Humanistic perspective is a blend of biological and social needs and is a sweeping overview of human motivation. Because Maslow believed that all needs vary in strength, he arranged them in a pyramidal form to indicate which have more strength. The most basic needs (like shelter and food) are vital to daily survival, and are at the bottom, while needs that are less important to staying alive are higher on the pyramid:

We may define the Need Hierarchy as –  a systematic arrangement of needs according to priority , which assumes that basic needs must be met before less basic needs are aroused. Thus, like stage theories, we must meet one need before we move on to the next.
[one_third].[/one_third][one_third][/one_third][one_third_last].[/one_third_last]

Levels:

Physiological – these include the need for food, water, and other vital components of life. If these needs are not met, the organism can’t survive. Thus, these are the most basic and important.

Safety and security – these needs refer more to the long term survival than day to day needs. Humans tend to seek out order and have a desire to live in a world that is not filled with chaos and danger. As a result, they seek out stable lives with careers, homes, insurance, etc.

‘Belongingness’ and love – after obtaining a safe environment to live and establishing some long term plans, people seek out love and affection from family members, friends, and lovers.

Esteem – at this level, people become concerned with self-esteem which may be based on achievements that they earn, recognition from others for jobs they do, etc.

Cognitive – needs at this level are based on acquiring knowledge and understanding of the world, people, behavior, etc. If you are in college to learn (not simply to get a degree) then you are attempting to fulfill your cognitive needs.

Aesthetic – aesthetic needs include beauty and order in life. Getting your life in order may provide a sense of comfort that people often lack. In addition, spending time finding and observing beauty in the world becomes an option and a desire as people do not have to struggle and fight to stay alive. Remember the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which people from our century who had been frozen are found and thawed? These people could not understand that money was no longer important, that starvation had been abolished on Earth, and that people now had the opportunity and will to better themselves through learning about art, music, etc. Picard was preaching the aesthetic level of Maslow’s hierarchy.

Self-actualization – this is the highest and most difficult level to reach. In fact, according to Maslow, very few people actually reach this level. Self-actualization is the need to fulfill one’s own potential. As Maslow stated, “What a man can be, he must be.” Interestingly, Maslow indicated that people will be frustrated if they can’t pursue their true loves and talents. For example, if a person has a talent for painting, but they become a doctor, they will be forever frustrated because the need for self-actualization will be hindered.