Recently in Reinforcement Category

Building Community in Organizations

I found this article through one of my other classes, but I think that it relates to Motivation and Emotion more than anything else in psychology. The article discusses six steps to having a healthy, cooperative community.  Many times it referrers to areas in the business context, but I also think it would be applicable to everyday life.  Although the article does come across as somewhat candy-coated, I still think the general ideas have great meaning behind them, even if they aren't 100% generalizable to every type of community. 

The text discusses the aspect of engagement (Reeve, 165) in a way that encourages motivation.  This is the same basic concept that the article is getting at, only more specified.  The article wants to motivate members of a given community to take part and care about that community, where as Reeve discusses the model of engagement in a broader basis.  Engagement can involve anything that someone cares about, including psychological needs. Engagement also taps into emotions as well, causing for even more intensified involvement in the given activity.  Building a strong community anywhere (whether it's at work, school, or home) can be much easier if these guidelines of engagement are implemented. Table 6.4 (Reeve, 164) in the text shows how the aspects of an environment can trigger engagement and fulfill different psychological needs. While many of these terms are different that those provided in the article, they stem off of the same ideas and constructs. 

 

The six principles of an engaged community are:

1. Communicate a compelling message.

2. Build a guiding coalition.

3. Create principle-based versus compliance-based guidelines for decisions and behaviors.

4. Identify early engagement indicators.

5. Generate continuous opportunities for dialogue at all levels.

6. Plan assimilation strategies for new members and new leaders.

 

While some of the terminology may seem complex, the article explains how simple each principle really is. Many of the terms stem from concepts that we have learned in the past about Motivation and Emotion.  The first aspect, communicating a compelling message, gets into the concept of involvement and relatedness, and almost acts like an advertisement.  Reeve discusses the importance of relatedness (Reeve, 161-162) and how high levels of relatedness can increase levels of social interaction, higher functioning, resilience to stress, and lower chances of psychological dysfunctions.  In order to get people engaged in a given situation, they must first feel as if they have a social relation to that community or event and have a sense of involvement within that situation.

The second principle, building a coalition, corresponds with the idea of leadership. Reeve (196) discusses how leadership skills can effect and influence the people around that leader.  Reeve also discusses how power can also change the attitudes of peers. With a high-quality leader, subordinates will be more likely to participate fully within the community, and be happier with their community overall.   

The third principle, principle-based vs. compliance-based guidelines, revolves around the idea of autonomy and control over situations.  Reeve discusses the importance of fulfilling the need for autonomy (Reeve, 145-146).  This area is crucial in discussing something such as a community or job setting, and can have a huge impact on the level of happiness and satisfaction each individual experiences.  Using guidelines that promote autonomy, rather than strict rules, can enhance individual's level of involvement and engagement within that group.  This can also improve performance and satisfaction in that particular situation.

The next principle deals with early signs of motivational concepts. Once people seem to show an interest in engagement, it reinforces the leaders and those involved by showing them that the engagement is possible and helpful. Reinforcing the behaviors of both leaders and subordinates is a good way to keep motivations high and keep everyone involved (Reeve, 115). In turn, this can help to keep the levels of engagement constant in the community setting.            Principle number five revisits aspects of relatedness and competence.  Encouraging communication is a way to gain relationships with each individual, strengthening their levels of engagement.  This also has an impact on their levels of competence (Reeve, 154).  Increasing communication increases levels of interaction with the environment, establishing a perception of competence.  Competence is the need to have an effect on the environment, as well as master optimal challenges (Reeve, 155).  Increasing the levels of communication and increasing opportunities for challenges is a great way to get individuals engaged in which ever community they may be in.

Assimilation strategies for new members and leaders is applying the concepts of all of these situations into one, making new members feel as though they are involved, making the steps of engagement easier to adapt to. In short, it takes aspects of all of the other principles and applies them to the single new member in order to make them feel as though they are engaged in that community, and so that they can begin to take part in each of the six principles.

 

Can you think of any other psychological concepts that we have discussed in class that relate to this article? Are there any that DON'T apply to these principles?

 

 

 

 

Guilt in Advertising

This article was very interesting to read.  It describes the different ways that advertisements can tug at our emotions.  Guilt appeal is a great way to get consumer's attention, and it's used quite a bit in the advertising world.  A good example of this is the commercials showing the dying polar bears without ice to live on, or the cute little puppies and kittens without homes.  Another classic example of this is the commercials about the children struggling in poor countries, asking you to help them with a "dollar a day."   Seeing these commercials evokes an emotional response, and leads the viewer to feel guilty, something advertisers are counting on.  The hope is that if you feel guilty about these poor puppies and children, you will give them money to try and help them or "save a life."
Previous research found that mothers were the most likely target and more susceptible to these types of advertising techniques, so it was mothers that were used in this research study.  They actually discovered that many times commercials and advertisements that used guilt as a motivational factor to buy the product actually evoked some levels of anger in the participants. This anger acted as a mediator between the guilt and the consumer's attitudes about the product or advertisement.   This anger also seemed to affect whether or not the participants reported that they would buy the product or not. Though it may sound surprising that these depressing commercials could evoke anger, think about the last time you saw the Haiti relief commercials? Or the American Christian Children's Fund? Yes, they are all depressing and raise some amount of guilt, but at the same time many Americans feel that things need to change in our own country first.  The article also discusses aspects of annoyance, and how the annoyance levels of these commercials can raise levels of anger as well.
Many commercials of the commercials like this act on the principle of relatedness.  This aspect is also discussed in the book (Reeve, 161, 2009).  Commercials want to make you feel as though you have a connection with the people or animals shown in the advertisement.  This may be why they show close ups of big puppy eyes, and probably why they send you a "personalized letter and photo of the child you're saving."  The advertisements are attempting to make you feel as though these people and animals are just like you or similar to you, your pets, or your children, and this makes us feel as though we should help them.  The letters and pictures that the children's fund sends to you also plays a role in feedback, because these things give you good feelings about your donation, it will reinforce the behavior and allow you to associate donating with good feelings (Reeve, 117).
Using these types of positive reinforcements once they have the consumer to a point where they have made a donation increases the chances that they will make an additional donation in the future.  Making people feel good about the things they have done (donating money, volunteering) is a way to provide a reward, and eventually this reward could develop into intrinsic motivations.  When someone consistently volunteers and contributes to the community, there are positive feelings associated with the outcomes.  This acts as a reinforcement/reward to begin with. As they continue to participate in these types of activities, the reward may evolve into an intrinsic motivation (Reeve, 111) because they are so used to those feelings and actions that they feel a basic internal drive to continue with their good feelings and positive contributions to the community. Along with this, another aspect of intrinsic motivations is the idea of challenge. People who participate in things such as Habitat for Humanity or other volunteer programs many have had feelings of guilt in order to get them started, but then a challenge developed and lead to more intrinsic motivations (Reeve, 111).
These commercials also incorporate the idea of sociability. When we feel as though everyone is donating to these funds (when they say "over a million Americans donate daily," or things of that nature), we don't want to be the only one's not donating.  We have a drive to donate just because we hear that there are many other people donating. It's almost as if these commercials are peer pressuring us into donating to their particular fund.
Many aspects of the textbook can be seen in these emotion-provoking commercials.  They play off of the fact that human's levels of self-perceptions can change at the drop of a hat (Reeve, 279).  When we don't act on these donations, our mind often creates a negative affect from the guilt we experience, which leads us to feel bad about ourselves and could lower our self-esteem (Reeve, 266).  The main difficulty here, according to Reeve, is that raising self-esteem is motivational intervention.  Adversely, the lowering of self-esteem may also be a motivational intervention if you look at the effects that these commercials have on people.  Because these commercials have made people feel bad, it motivates them to donate their money in order to feel good again. Then, every time we donate money and get those good feelings, it reinforces that behavior so that the behavior continues.

There are many other aspects of psychology within these types of commercials. What are some other areas where psychology comes into play within advertisements? What about within the media in general? How do these things affect our everyday lives when we aren't even thinking about them?

Self-Cutting Behaviors in Adolescents
Self-Injury: Addiction? Parasuicide? A Call for Help?
Self-Injury: Myths and Misconceptions 1
Self-Injury: Myths and Misconceptions 2

While watching Manic, I couldn't help but wonder why a few of them had injured themselves. The one girl had an 'Anarchy' symbol on her thigh, and Lyle had burned himself. Self-Injurious behavior has increased over the last several decades and is probably seen as an American problem, but it has been around for a long time throughout cultures. Cases involving emergency visits occur at a rate of 225 per 100,000 people aged 7-24. While causality is unclear, my Abnormal Psychology textbook cites a recent study that found that of the adolescents that engage in self-injurious behavior, 50% have a depressive or anxiety disorder, 60% have a substance used disorder, 60% have a disruptive behavior disorder, and more than 50% have a personality disorder (most often borderline, avoidant, or paranoid personality disorder). Obviously, those numbers add up to more than 100%, so the comorbidity of mental disorders associated with this behavior makes intervention and treatment that much more difficult and complex.  

Self-injury is typically thought of as a suicide attempt, but that is not necessarily true. It can be used as a coping mechanism (albeit a short-lived and poor one) for dealing with emotional stress. Some people actually run into cutting by accident (like the girl in Manic) when they accidentally cut themselves shaving or something and instead of pain they feel relief. As described in the 'myths and misconceptions 2' link, this lack of pain experience might be explained by being in a dissociative state ( or zoned out). What causes the dissociative state is less clear. The relief (negative reinforcement) is actually the result of endorphins flooding the brain which is the result of the response to pain and can have actual euphoric-like effects (positive reinforcement). With the co-occurrence of both of these effects, it is easy to see why self-injurious behavior can become a powerful coping mechanism.

Have you ever noticed how often your mind seems to drift towards the negative over the positive? Much of the research done in the realm of positive psychology suggests that we are that way because these feelings reflect more urgent claims to us. However, if there was a way to improve the quality of our lives most of us would probably jump at the opportunity.

 

An article written by Donald Latumahina suggests that the strength of our thoughts are increased as we pay more attention to them thereby self-enforcing the negative thought patterns we are experiencing. A small issue can quickly be blown out of proportion--an occurrence that frequently consumes us. Latumahina suggests that the best way to overcome this brutal cycle is to shift thoughts to something more positive in nature. This would, in turn, reinforce the positive thoughts while diminishing the negative ones. He goes on to provide tips to readers wishing to think more positively in their daily lives.

 

One of these includes realizing that thinking negatively about someone leads to you also treating them negatively. We must consider that the appropriate efficacy expectation required for personal control in this situation is the individual's determination of whether or not they can think positively about this individual instead. The author offers up the idea of shifting attention to a positive side or something else that's altogether constructive. Another component to behavior regulation is that of outcome expectancies. In this situation, an individual must also judge that the positive shift will have an effect on the outcome of the situation (that it will resolve the ruminations experienced because of the negative thoughts). In other words, will it work to do this? Once the self has a desired mediating efficacy expectation in place their actions will reflect it. Outcome expectations will then arbitrate the relationship between the action and the individual's perceived control.

 

Another tip offered was to read an inspiring book. Spiritual books are indicated as a good source of inspiration to those aspiring to make self-improvements. The verbal persuasions these devices offer readers work to the extent that it supplies a temporary and provisional efficacy boost to produce the needed motivation to try again. Spirituality is a fundamental component driving the connection between perceived control and desired outcomes in a majority of religious based improvement books.

 

We also must make ourselves comfortable with failure as it is a stepping stone in the learning process. In order to succeed and develop a mastery orientation, we must know what it's like to fail and not fear it. "If you find yourself thinking negatively about a situation, decide that you won't give up even if the worst happens. Prove yourself to be a tough opponent. You are a winner." Our self-efficacy beliefs influence how much effort we are willing to exert and how long we are willing to exert it in hard times. Effort and persistence are key components to overcoming setbacks and challenges, and in accepting that you will more than likely make mistakes. What can you do to think more positively?      

 

http://www.lifeoptimizer.org/2008/01/23/tips-to-defeat-negative-thoughts/

 

This past weekend I went to a casino for the first time in my life. After spending the entire time at the slot machines, I realized how easy it would be to develop a gambling addiction. After looking in the textbook for some more information on addictions I found a few reasons why people might become addicted to gambling.

 

When a person gambles they are continually reinforced. Positive reinforcement, gaining something, is an effective way to increase behaviors. In a casino winning money would be that positive reinforcer. After hitting a button on a slot machine, a second later I learn if I either won or lost money. This immediacy of reinforcement is also very strong and would help to increase behaviors. While at the casino I became "hot" and won a lot of money (ok, it was really only $3) in a short period of time. This reinforcement only made me want to press that button again and again.

 

I always thought that loosing money would be an effective way to stop the behavior of gambling and it would negate the reinforcement. However, punishment in general is ineffective. The loss of money is not a strong as the reinforcement one gets when winning money. I noticed this when I started loosing money, but I still kept playing the slots hoping to gain some of it back.

 

In the textbook it talks about high sensation seekers (pg. 380). It states that high sensation seekers are motivated by the excitement rather than the money when gambling. People who are low sensation seekers show "aversive reactivity to risky sources of motivation." By this definition I would place myself on the low sensation seeker side. I am not a fan of gambling because it is too risky, there is no guarantee of winning.

 

Do you think there are other sources of motivation that may help to explain gambling or addictions in general? Have you ever gone gambling and noticed some of these concepts?

Extrinsic Motivation on Ted

I was watching videos on TED again and found a very fitting video related to our classwork on extrinsic motivation. Follow the link above.
The speaker, Dan Pink, was explaining how businesses reward employees with extrinsic motivators such as cash bonuses, perks, or other benefits and he has proven that this method is not the most effective in the work place.
The example study in the video clip is "The Candle Problem":

The researcher gives subject a candle, matches, and a box of thumbtacks and instructs them to attach the candle to the wall so that the wax doesn't drip onto the table. Some try to tack or melt the candle to the wall before realizing that they need to tack the thumbtack box to the wall and place the candle inside. Researchers found that subjects who were the "control" or "norm" group finished faster than those offered incentives for finishing the fastest.

 They repeated the task giving them a pile of tacks, a box, a candle, and matches, same situation, but the group who had incentives finished faster than the control group. This worked because it was a very simple (mechanical) task so they could zoom right in, focus on the problem, and solve it.

The overall conclusion from the video was that for complicated tasks, rewards narrow focus and hold people back.  Increased autonomy, mastery, and purpose has been shown to improve performance.  Tasks that involve mechanical skills are completed quicker with incentives, but tasks that require cognitive skills are completed more poorly if rewards are involved.

So:

If-then rewards destroy creativity.

 

Intrinsic drive improves performance.

 

if-then rewards are good for mechanical tasks.

While sometimes extrinsic motivation may be necessary and could be beneficial Reeve (2009) also mentions that expected reinforcement or rewards may decrease performance.  Extrinsic motivation can take out any intrinsic motivation someone has for completion of a task.  But for this to happen one must be expecting the reward.
Reeve (2009) also says that a problem in our society is that so many people expect rewards for doing things they do.  Is there  a way we can stop this problem?  For example, if a non-profit organization asks a big corporation for a donation of some kind a lot of times it is an if you give us this we'll do this for you (usually advertising).  Is this something we have to begin as parents with our own kids.  Instead of saying "wash your hands and you'll get a cookie for dessert" say "go wash your hands because it is important for your health...kill those germs!"(or something to that effect).   

What do you think?

If you go check out TED and find a video you like then I will reward you with a nice bonus!  (oh wait now you won't want to do it.) 

Praise is not always motivating.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The%20Power%20(and%20Peril)%20of%20Praising%20Your%20Kids%20--%20New%20York%20Magazine&expire=&urlID=21157633&fb=Y&url=http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/&partnerID=73272

"A growing body of research and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system�strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of 'smart' does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it."

Main Article:  

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/feel-eat/story?id=4387456

 

          One reason I found this article very interesting is because I believe that each of us, including myself, do not often think about the effect that our diet has on our emotions and mood. The researchers in this study came to the conclusion that "Food really does have a lot of power." By properly maintaining a well-balanced diet we can significantly improve our mood. This article analyzes several different foods and provides the possible effects each one can have on a person's health.

 

     An important point here is that mood can affect your eating choices, and what you have eaten can subsequently affect your mood. In some ways, this can be a cyclical process. People who eat harmful foods may sometimes feel bad as a result of their nutritional effects and continue consuming the harmful food to (temporarily) get rid of the negative feelings. In psychological terms, there is negative reinforcement.

 

    This is a very important topic today, and I think each of us should take time to consider this study. As these researchers report, " the average consumer isn't eating a healthy enough diet, let alone a diet that will put them in a good mood." As of today, over a third of adults are obese - not just overweight, but obese. As they say in the article, "Though no studies show that mood disorders and increased obesity are directly related, many agree that there is some correlation."

      As I mentioned in my last article, the prevalence of fast food should be of great concern to us, and I say this for a few reasons. Fast food restaurants, such as McDonalds, often use addictive ingredients within their products that may taste very good and increase short-term feelings of happiness, but these artificial chemicals increase the motivation to eat more through grossly unnatural means. When I suggest that we may need to have higher standards on our food (fast food, grocery store products, etc.), I realize some of the criticisms that may arise. Some people would say that consumers could just make these foods in their own home, or people would just find ways around the standards. There are many European restaurants, however, that do have higher standards on fast food than we do. The food may not taste as good in the moment it is consumed, but it is much healthier for one's physical and mental health over the long term.

      There are a few psychological concepts at play here. To avoid the tastier, yet unhealthier foods a person must possess effective gratification delay strategies. Another important point here is that many people are not at a "natural" homeostasis level as determined by their DNA and genetic predisposition. I believe the problem here is largely cultural. Also, this is not just an obesity problem or mood problem - there are many factors at work here, and it may take a bit of critical thinking to get a grasp on what is actually going on. As these researchers reported, "(The) rising rates of depression and other mood disorders (parallel) the rise of obesity in the U.S... It is hard to establish cause and effect, but it's not by chance that stress has been going up and depression has been going up and obesity is going up." There is a very big difference between psychological disorders that require medication and mild mood impairments, but the effects of dietary behavior are a critical part of the equation. Some individuals with anxiety problems have shown significant improvement by simply eating a healthier diet. The effects of this problem are very widespread, long lasting, and have proven devastating to the lives of many people.  

      I would also like to focus on a few of the findings of this study as they relate to happiness in terms of neurotransmitters and overall mood. It mentions all of these foods in depth on the website, but I will try to summarize their information here. 

   Fast Food is known to be a "mood downer." These are the main points about them the article mentions...

 

- Unequivocally, fast foods are mood downers. While it may be cheap, fast, or just easy to reach for a donut, a bag of chips, or a hamburger, eventually, your mood will pay the price.

 

- The immediate effects of a high-fat or sugary snack can be misleading. Often, they give a quick burst of energy and may reduce tension. But these effects run in reverse rapidly. They shift to increase tension and reduce energy.

 

- Fast food and junk food are usually the most processed foods, where the nutrients are refined to the point where they are absorbed immediately or not at all, leaving no long-term sustenance for the body to feed off of. It is addictive to eat that sort of lipid-laden diet.

 

- Besides the poor nutrient content, fast food often contains many additives and preservatives that can affect mood negatively. Food colorings and preservatives, like benzoate, and added flavorings like monosodium glutamate (MSG), can cause anxiety, according to Scott.

 

-  Studies have shown that the omega-6 fatty acids often found in these foods, can compete with omega-3 fatty acids and an imbalance between the two can lead to obesity and depression. Since Americans often don't get enough omega-3s in their diets, consuming too many fast food items puts them at risk for mood problems.

 

   Luckily, we have a great variety of other choices, which include...

 

Salmon -  Salmon is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which help to improve one's mood, one's heart, and possibly even one's mind. Omega-3 fatty acids are used for building neurotransmitters like serotonin in the brain, and some studies have shown that eating plenty of these fats has depression-preventing qualities. Other foods with these acids include flaxseeds and walnuts.

In fact, countries where oily fish are a part of the diet, such as Japan, have lower rates of depression than other countries. These countries often have a healthier diet and lifestyle overall, but their omega-3 intake is higher as well.

 

Milk

- rich in calcium and the amino acid tryptophan

- bone-building properties

- calcium is known to calm nerves when feeling stressed or anxious

-  tryptophan is important for producing serotonin, which elevates mood.

 

Chocolate

- rich in a variety of mood-lifting ingredients (most concentrated in dark chocolate)

- dark chocolate is high in polyphenols, which are shown to improve cognitive function

- chocolate also contains phenylethylamines, a neurotransmitter that, in low levels, is associated with depression and in high levels can be associated with schizophrenia

- phenylethylamines work by releasing endorphins in the brain and promote feelings of attraction and giddiness.

- "Both sex and dark chocolate activate the same parts of the brain"

 

(additional foods are analyzed in the main article)

I found an article that interested me on teacher evaluations. At the school mentioned in the article they are done differently than at UNI. Mid semester the teacher can choose to have the "Focus Feedback" done. About halfway through a normal class, the professor leaves and another person then leads a discussion about the class. Students are asked to critique the professors teaching style, both what the like and do not like. The information is then given to the professor, so if they choose to they can change the class for the rest of the semester.I feel like this would be really helpful, for both student and professor. If students can give input to a professor on something that could help them, competence levels would go up and so would most likely enjoyment for the class. Everyone wants to be competent in the activities we engage in, and this could only help. I know i have had classes in which i would have loved to be able to tell the professor things to change mid semester and have them actually taken into account.

 Often a professor does not know if they are getting the information across to the students, so I think this type of feedback would be useful. Feedback can be a very helpful source, in making changes for the better. Student evaluation is a good way for professors to get feedback on how well their teaching styles is appealing to and helping students learn. Performance feedback can also give the professors a sense of a job well done, if the feedback is positive, and give them something to change or think about if they are getting mostly negative feedback from students.  

            At this University only 20 professors took part in the Focus Feedback, why do you think that is?

            Why do you think so few professors at UNI do student evaluations at the end of the semester?

 

http://media.www.umdstatesman.com/media/storage/paper1351/news/2010/02/24/News/Optional.Teacher.Evaluations.Used.By.Few.Professors-3878429.shtml

 

 

After watching The Hours, and learning about autonomy and how everyone needs to have that kind of support in their lives, people have the need to be in control of their lives.  Where in the movie, all the women thought that suicide was the one thing that they could control in their lives, that was the thing that their husbands and responsibilities couldn't control.  When learning about this extreme sense to gain control, I thought of girls and boys who have eating disorders.  Where psychologically, they can feel so out of control with their lives, that they try and control what they put, or don't put, into their bodies.  Although, there are other ideas that go into Eating Disorders, I thought that autonomy was greatly related. 

I found an article that hypothesized that disturbances in the development of autonomy are a central psychological feature in anorexia nervosa. Specifically, that both restrictive and bulimic anorexics would evidence greater problems with autonomy than would controls and, further, that the three groups would show differential patterns of response on these measures.  The study proved to show that this was a true hypothesis.  The study states that autonomy isn't the single factor for certain eating disorders, but can be useful in the treatment of some eating disorders. 

http://psycnet.apa.org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/journals/abn/96/3/254.pdf

I believe that having control over one's own life is a huge motivating factor for how we choose to live our lives, and we want to be able to control certain things.  For eating disorders, their reinforce is the way that they feel about themselves when they lose the weight, but the idea that they will never be their 'perfect' size shows that persistence and need to be what their idea of perfect is.

Why is money so important?

That was my reoccurring question while watching this last movie, Wall Street .  It has also crossed my mind many times.

 

One unfortunately obvious reason is to live in this world.

I just personally do not like money.  I think it can control a person.  It breeds inequality and I wish instead of trading money for our goods and services instead we gave something in return.  Like trading a perfectly good milking cow for magic beans.   What about the good ol' days?   

 

Sometimes I just wonder what this world would be like if ALL money was erased.  Used instead to wrap packages.  Or have it cleaned and recycled to make clothes or accessories, or bags, or something that people need.  I guess I should be careful how I use that word, need, since we have been talking so much about our needs as people in class.  Maybe we shall say something that is important to people.

 

Is money a part of our needs? We have to say yes, because in this day and age we have to earn money to go to the store to purchase the food that is going to feed us when we're hungry.  We have to pay the utility bill in order to turn on the faucet and get delicious cold water, whenever we want it (rather than whenever we need it). 

 

Equality: so we are all created equal right?  Is this really true if you are born into a filthy rich family or if you are born in some alley and you're living on the streets with your mom?  How is that equal?  Just think if every single person in the whole world had the same about of money?  Just think if every job paid the same salary.  What if everyone was really equal in that way?  Could that improve our way of life?  Would there be less greed for money and more greed for love? 

 

I think then people would actually enjoy going to their job. There was an experiment that tested self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  This article is attached below.  There was a group of college men part of an experiment that were coming in to put together a puzzle.  The independent variables were either a blank or a picture puzzle and getting paid or no payment.  The results showed that the picture puzzle completed without getting paid was the most enjoyable.  So what is happening to us then when we add in that extrinsic variable, money?

 

 

 http://psycnet.apa.org.proxy.lib.uni.edu/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1975-31777-001

(then just click on the "pdf" option)

 

 

I have recently been observing a class at Taft Alternative, which is a section of Taft Middle School in Cedar Rapids. The children who are part of Taft Alternative all have behavioral problems, are disruptive in class, and most have been diagnosed with some form of ADHD. The main focus of the teachers in this section is to help the students better control their behavior. This being said, half of the students grades are based upon their behavior throughout the day. Each student has a points sheet that ranges from 0 to 50 (50 being the best behavior and 0 the worst). Throughout the day the teachers give students points based on their behavior in the class. Points may be deducted because of inattention, disruption, yelling, swearing, etc. Points may also be given if the student volunteers in the various programs at Taft. If a student gains enough points, they will then receive 'money' to spend in the school store on different objects like pens, erasers, and so on.

 

Chapter 5 of the textbook discusses extrinsic rewards. The author mentions that in school-based studies rewards distract students' attention towards the reward rather than the material being learned. Also, when the rewards stop a person has trouble regulating that behavior. With this information, does offering rewards in Taft Alternative make sense? From what I have observed, I do not think that the rewards are very effective. Students are not troubled by a low points sheet and do not really seem to work towards getting points.

 

What are some ways the teachers may be able to motivate the students to have better behavior? Should Taft Alternative completely remove the points system, revise it, or keep it the way it is?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA96Fba-WHk

This video is from a television show and it shows positive reinforcement.  Whenever the girl would do something that one of the guys thought of as "good behavior" he would reward her with chocolate (incentive).  He would do this without telling her that it was something good; just reinforce the behavior with a reward. 

In the book, in chapter 5, the author discusses extrinsic motivation which comes from environmental incentives and consequences.  In this case, the extrinsic motivator would be chocolate, the reward recieved for the behavior.  Extrinsic motivation is related to positive reinforcement because of the "do this and you will get that" behavior that people are trying to change or adjust.  The motivation was to get the chocolate as a reward for doing what people consider to be a good action or behavior. 

These types of teaching happens a lot with child rearing and teaching kids what kinds of behaviors are appropriate and which aren't.  Intrinsic motivation happens in these situations because people are recieving positive feedback for their behaviors.  So that is a natural motivation for people to do a behavior, when they are rewarded. 

Have you ever found it interesting when in school, that if you were given a chance to help out (when in elementary) and leave the class (in middle to high school and now college) that you were more motivated to complete or finish that paper or learn a task.  

When I was in 5^th grade, every other Friday we would have an afternoon where we could hang out, outside of the class room. Yet, in order to get that chance we had to have completed our homework and turned it in daily, been on good behavior and been to school every day. I found it really interesting when I look back on it now, but the teachers where trying to motivate us to do better and or at least the minimum in order to be able to go somewhere else in the school, or in my case the library. That is where the girls hanged out to talk and slack off; in reality we were supposed to be putting up books for the librarian.  It was an Incentive or reward, which motivated a certain behavior. I guess you can call it extrinsic motivation because we as children worked towards these goals in order to slack off later. Plus it did place some type of situational interest within us, which our textbook talks about as being a type of interest which is short term and can be seen as the shiny object that draws you in and creates a certain type of motivation or gain in knowledge. Even though situational interest is great, a teacher tries to create a more logical expectation of personal interest in a student, which is a long term interest and the student does these activates on their own accord.  Now, I was a student who did well regardless because I personally found that I wanted to achieve more than was expected for me, as well show my parents that I was a good student. I didn't receive an allowance and I didn't get a pass on my chores, but I knew in the long run that I would benefit someday from my motivation to learn. But for other students these incentives were what drove them to at least meet these requirements.

So I searched for ways to motivate students, now I understand that this list is aimed at a younger crowd, but can you imagine if these still worked for us today?

http://specialed.about.com/cs/behaviordisorders/a/rewards.htm

The list is funny to look back on, but I remember some of these working, here are a few of my favorite.

·         Take a bubble blower out at recess.

·         Free homework passes.

·         Leader for a day.

·         Earn points for class Video.

When you were a child in elementary what motivated you? What motivates you now? Were and are there rewards involved? Like an allowance or a pass of doing chores? Do you think that this reward system has or could have backfired potentially? Also, in thinking about this, our class has some fun activities and incentives as well and do you think that will affect your motivation in learning the material?

Have you ever found it interesting when in school, that if you were given a chance to help out (when in elementary) and leave the class (in middle to high school and now college) that you were more motivated to complete or finish that paper or learn a task.  

When I was in 5^th grade, every other Friday we would have an afternoon where we could hang out, outside of the class room. Yet, in order to get that chance we had to have completed our homework and turned it in daily, been on good behavior and been to school every day. I found it really interesting when I look back on it now, but the teachers where trying to motivate us to do better and or at least the minimum in order to be able to go somewhere else in the school, or in my case the library. That is where the girls hanged out to talk and slack off; in reality we were supposed to be putting up books for the librarian.  It was an Incentive or reward, which motivated a certain behavior. I guess you can call it extrinsic motivation because we as children worked towards these goals in order to slack off later. Plus it did place some type of situational interest within us, which our textbook talks about as being a type of interest which is short term and can be seen as the shiny object that draws you in and creates a certain type of motivation or gain in knowledge. Even though situational interest is great, a teacher tries to create a more logical expectation of personal interest in a student, which is a long term interest and the student does these activates on their own accord.  Now, I was a student who did well regardless because I personally found that I wanted to achieve more than was expected for me, as well show my parents that I was a good student. I didn't receive an allowance and I didn't get a pass on my chores, but I knew in the long run that I would benefit someday from my motivation to learn. But for other students these incentives were what drove them to at least meet these requirements.

So I searched for ways to motivate students, now I understand that this list is aimed at a younger crowd, but can you imagine if these still worked for us today?

http://specialed.about.com/cs/behaviordisorders/a/rewards.htm

The list is funny to look back on, but I remember some of these working, here are a few of my favorite.

·         Take a bubble blower out at recess.

·         Free homework passes.

·         Leader for a day.

·         Earn points for class Video.

When you were a child in elementary what motivated you? What motivates you now? Were and are there rewards involved? Like an allowance or a pass of doing chores? Do you think that this reward system has or could have backfired potentially? Also, in thinking about this, our class has some fun activities and incentives as well and do you think that will affect your motivation in learning the material?

The answer to the question of the title, for me, is YES, I am motivated to attend class when their is an attendance policy in place!  When I know a teacher is taking attedance I will not skip class, unless I absolutely have to because of personal reasons such as really sick, doctors appointment, or the weather and can't make it to class. 

In chapter 6 there was a figure that had Intrnsic Motivation and under engagement Class Attendance.  It caught my eye so I wanted to do a little more reasearch to see how other's felt about that.  I found an article that said a major predictor for college success is in fact classroom attendance.  Within this article Mississippi State University reaches out to their students who have skipped class more than two times, to see if they need help with anything and try to undertand why the student is not coming to class.  That could be a good thing for students, they see the professor actually cares about them and their learning, and will motivate the student to come to class.  

It's a feeling of autonomy support from the teacher, and will then have the student be motivated knowing that there is an attedance in affect.  Normally students who attend college don't want to do bad in any of their classes, so knowing that they HAVE to go to class and its not some free ride, will definitely up their GPA and graduate. 

As a student, are you motivated to attend class if there is an attendance policy in place, or do you believe you are not in high school anymore and should be able to come and go as you please and be treated like an adult?

 

The link to the article above is: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0129/p15s01-lehl.html 

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

I am taking a class this semester that deals a lot with relationships and how men and women communicate. We recently started talking about the famous "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" ideas. This term was coined by author John Gray and Mr. Gray has made a killing through his book and seminars that tell his listeners why their relationship may not be working. I was unfamiliar with the content of these books and was slightly horrified when I learned what they are teaching. Gray outlines ways in which to communicate with a man:
Only speak for two minutes
Speak only about one topic at a time
Provide few, if any, details
Be aware that revealing emotions may cause him to pull away
Appreciate him for listening
No eye contact
Expect interruptions
I was appalled by the way Gray says women should talk to men. It seems that Gray thinks that in order to communicate with a man you should treat him like a five year old. I was very confused by "Be aware of revealing emotions". How are we supposed to get close to anyone without revealing our emotions and thoughts? Another that bothered me was that women are supposed to reward men for listening. Should we reward him with sex just because he listened for two minutes? What kind of message is that sending to men? Do what I want and I'll put out? While sex is a huge motivational tool I do not think it should be used just to get your partner to listen to you. I know a lot of people follow John Gray and really connect with what he is preaching, but I think it is completely bogus.
What do you guys think? Should we use sex in relationships to get what we want? Is sharing emotions bad for your relationship? If a man is aloof and uncommunicative what would be the motivation for fixing a relationship if women just accept that "that's how men are"?

In the article Addiction: Pay Attention, the author, Kathleen McGowan, introduces us to Nora Volkow. Volkow is currently one of the country's most well-known drug addiction researchers and discusses how and why she became interested in this area of research and where it has led her.

According to Volkow, her neurobiology is such that she has a natural protection against drugs. When she tried a cigarette for the first time to be glamorous, she felt rebelled to hate it. Even though she loves coffee, the effects on her body are too much for her. She is very lucky as not all individuals possess this trait. She holds many addiction theories, but most interestingly, her idea that addiction may be a malfunction of the normal human craving for stimulation seems to fit with the topic of discussion in Chapter 3.  She believes that drugs and other addictive behaviors tap into a deep place within us -"our lust for newness, our yearning for vitality, and the deep-thrill of being alive." We all want these things, and once we have had a taste of it, we want more. There is something very powerful about it.

Dopamine is being viewed differently in this part of the science world as what we believe to be the "pleasure switch" to the brain does not align well with addictions to drugs like cocaine and nicotine. Very few addicts will say that they want to be addicted, and Volkow was dissatisfied with the contradiction. Researchers are looking further into what dopamine actually does--it makes us feel good but it also tells us what is salient. We need these moments to pick up additional cues or alerts that will continue our survival. The example given within the article is "if you are hungry and you get a whiff of a bacon cheeseburger your dopamine skyrockets. But the chemical will also surge if a lion leaps into your cubicle. Dopamine's role is to shout: "Hey! Pay attention to this!""

Perhaps addicts are not simply seeking a good time but have mistakenly learned that the most important thing to be aware of is drugs--just as important to their survival as food or sex.  If Volkow and her researchers are correct, the role of dopamine may be to unite us with the world and provide the will to remain alive. In an addict's brain, what is salient is the drug and nothing competes with that. The brain adapts to the flood of dopamine as time passes by dampening the system--in other words, what would highly stimulate us may not do much or anything at all for the addict.

The article also discusses obesity and how it malfunctions the dopamine system. The heaviest people in the study performed had fewer dopamine receptors than the lightest. "Like addicts, overeaters may be compensating for a sluggish dopamine system by turning to the one thing that gets their neurons pumping."

I would encourage you to read the article summarized above. The information is quite interesting and directly relates to our discussions related to dopamine and addictions in class.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/addiction-pay-attention

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1008/565794_video.html?ref=newsstory 

This video illustrates how addiction to caffeine is a rising trend in today's culture. For a behavior modification class, I had to use this video and propose an intervention/behavior modification to combat a dysfunctional behavior. This topic has intrigued me outside of the class, so I continue to read articles about it on occasion.

Caffeine is a drug that can be found everywhere. It's not regulated and the government doesn't require the caffeine content to be listed in the ingredients, except with soda and energy drinks, but that was only a recent law. Caffeine is found in many different foods, as it's a cheap ingredient to add that foodmakers hope will add appeal and desire for the product from consumers. Even decaf coffee has caffeine in it! Not nearly as much as a regular coffee, but the belief that it doesn't have any isn't true!

I think caffeine is a reinforced substance because it causes generally pleasant sensations from the "caffeine high" as well as increased alertness. The alertness is especially reinforcing for college students staying up late to study or finish a paper!

What's your average daily caffeine intake? Do you have a coffee each morning or an afternoon energy drink often?

Who has ever tried to lose weight but lacked the motivation to actual do it? Or tried to reach that BMI index that is healthy for their height and weight? Many people have started a diet and exercise program and either succeeded at this program or failed. What could be some possibilities that would get people to stick to their weight lose goals or reach that healthy BMI index? Could you say that it is health wise important, or you will have more energy if you do? How about if it were made a requirement for graduation? At Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, they are making it a requirement to have a BMI index of 30, which is higher than the actual BMI average of 22.

Here is the link to the NPR article http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/pennsylvania_college_makes_bmi.html

 

How they do this is have the incoming freshmen get their BMI measured and if it comes back higher than 30 they are required to take the "HPR 103 Fitness Walking/Conditioning" class, or they can't graduate.  The other students who took the BMI measurement and passed are not required to take any additional physical tests or classes while attending.

The logic behind this according to DeBoy a chair of the department of health, phys ed and recreation there at Lincoln said, "As health educators we're concerned with the whole student, not just the academic part, but all the components that make up health and wellness."

So as a student whose BMI is way over 30 and is as of my last check up in perfect health, besides some breathing problems that I have had way before I was considered unhealthy, find that this can create a problem. I would just not attend this college if I knew that I would not be able to reach this goal. I also would have a problem with the fact that this can cause some mental health problems for many students who find themselves perfect at their current weight.  It initially states that you may be healthy, but you are at risk and to save you, I think you should lose some weight.

What is your thought on this and is it a good start to achieving a healthier America? And foremost would this motivate you if our university made it a requirement for graduation?

      For a long time now we have seen the warnings from doctors about tanning beds. The statistics do not lie. In an article I read on FoxNews.com targets the recent skin cancer increase among teenagers and how they are linking skin cancer to tanning beds. One reference the article makes is to a Britain study where the leading cause of skin cancer death is among teenager. Interestingly enough prior to our societies obsession with tanning beds people over the age of 75 were more likely to be diagnosed with Skin Cancer than teenagers and people in their 20s.

With all of this information about skin cancer why would anyone choose to continue to tan on a regular basis? What are peoples motives? Is there a reinforcement that people are recieving from the tanning bed? Personally I feel it is because out society puts such an emphasis on appearances. We see models in magazines and actors/actresses with golden brown skin and it has become an obsession to teenager and people in their 20s to mirror the look.

I have in front of me right now a Glamour Magazine with a cover story titled "SCARY! The Beauty Habit That Can Give You Cancer". ( I tried to find the article online but had no luck)  In reading this article the reporter states that although with the recent study linking tanning to cancer and how it is more dangerous than we ever thought people are still making their regular trips to the tanning bed and do not plan on stopping any time soon.  Tasy-a business woman from New Jersey, stated that "The health warnings don't scare me. I do not overdo it. For me, it's just like going to the gym, using makeup or buying a new outfit-it makes me feel and look good."  According to the magazine 77% of their readers share the same view.

Why do you think females (and I'm sure some males) share this view. What is so intriguing about tanning that people will put aside the fact and continue to tan? Are there any tanners our there? Is so...please feel free to comment on the motive behind your tanning? 

Fox News Article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535220,00.html

I don't know about the rest of you, but every Spring semester, I get a minor case of senioritis.  I'm not sure if it's the idea that summer break is so close, or if it's the nicer weather, but it becomes increasingly difficult to concentrate or stay motivated to attend class and do the work.

http://www.breastfriends.com/

Above is the original website of breast friends, which helps many women deal with emotional pain. It also helps motivate women with cancer to fight. It starts with "First I Cry" which is a message welcoming them to sisterhood. "Inside is a silk screened handkerchief with the Breast Friends logo, along with a list of contacts for area support groups and a feedback card." They are told to pass it on to a loved one, whether that being a family member or friend. Secondly there is a match program which pairs women up with others to help cope with cancer...it is a great support group for someone who does not have a support system. Thirdly, they give out hats for women who are having problems with losing their hair. H.A.T.S stands for Healthy Attitude to Survive. Furthermore, they go to a inmate facility to talk to inmates which is a great opportunity for the innmates to open up about their feelings, fears and concerns around cancer. Lastly, breast friends does a workshop: "Thriving Beyond Cancer" which is a four week workshop after the patient has finished treatment.

To read more about breastfriends and how one can help click the link above.

This article about Why You Should Never Give to the Poor really put some questions in my mind about a lot of different things, manly on why the author decided to name this article this in the first place. I thought that it was going to be about the people on the corners of intersections asking for money. Yet, it was about a misunderstanding on the behalf of the givers and the receivers. Here is the link for a quick read.

 http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/why-you-should-never-give-to-the-poor/

To me people do great things for others all the time and they are really motivated to do it. But I feel that if you are going to reach out, make sure that you don't judge people who don't understand the importance of asking how this works and why.

The article is about a humanitarian group installing a water system and waste disposal system for the village that was in need of clean water and a place to dispose of their waste.  That to me is a good resource, but then after this initial humanitarian group left, a few months later another group returned to see how the village was doing. To their surprise the village had let the systems go to waste.

I could see their point, you give a village a way to have clean water and a place for sewage, and then they abuse the systems. It also mentioned that these installments were not cheap.

The fact that these humanitarian groups came the first time was great, but the chief of the tribe made sense. They came in and installed it and left, didn't teach them how to fix it if it broke down or didn't even place some type of regulations on the equipment as well. So these people were in a place where okay it's broken nothing I can do about it, and hey it's free. To me you can't expect people to just be like okay I get the picture thanks. Yes, they are grateful and no they will abuse it because it's a necessity they have never had before.

So here are some questions if you were doing an article on this piece would you name it what it is currently or change it to something else? Also, if you saw this going on and you were the second group, would you do the same thing? Or if you were the first group would you explain the whole thing to the village first and show them how to fix it if were to ever break? What do you think the motivation of the village is the second time around?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119133519.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.

Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."

Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.

 

Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.

Here's a short article I found.

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-advertising/4216318-1.html

It's a Point/Counterpoint about using fear as a motivator in the workplace.  The side against says that fear only works short term and can cause unforeseen consequences.  The side for says that fear can be a great motivator if you keep your distance and set reasonable consequences that you follow through with.

Which side do you agree with?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95949912

 

I found this NPR article on motivating school children to be rather interesting and perhaps somewhat controversial. It talks about paying children according to their attendance, quality of work, and behavior in class. My initial reaction to this story is that this type of program is a great experiment. We already spend tremendous amounts of money on education, but continue to get very poor results in many schools. I think money has sometimes been mindlessly thrown here and there, and we don't see any good come from that. It has sometimes been said that raising the teacher pay will bring in higher quality people or that bringing in various new classroom materials will help students learn, but the problem seems to be deeper than that.

As was mentioned earlier on our blog, one major problem is "stupid homework." By no means am I referring to all, or even most, homework, but in my educational experience I have had plenty of assignments that have just been downright meaningless. You waste a great amount of time, learn nothing, and feel like you've lost a few brain cells in the process. Another part of the problem is that the belief that homework/studying is unpleasant and to be avoided has been instilled in many of us from a very early age. There seems to be a negative connotation with learning, and I think we should work harder to change that, perhaps by doing more to support "science is fun" programs and others like it. If students perceive educational activities as fun, they will find greater energy to put into their learning.

I also think schools can put too much emphasis on grades, which can subsequently cause some children to focus only on letter grades and many others to become apathetic about the education system. Although I have generally got rather good grades throughout my academic career, and a certain amount of assessment is surely needed, putting so much of the emphasis on a few short (and sometimes poorly written) tests does not seem to be the best approach. Sometimes such tests tell you very little about the students except perhaps their abilities to discern/anticipate what information will be asked on the test and cram accordingly. I think many students feel this way, and they feel discouraged when think that they will not be fairly evaluated.

This may be more a problem in the high school and college environments, but I think another very serious problem with our education is an overwhelming lack of clarity in certain classroom environments. Sometimes students are required to read very old texts that are written in an English language that is very different from our own. It is unreasonable for students to be required to read these texts without any guidance from the instructor - the professor should be there for a reason. In college, I know of at least one professor who gets away with murder by having "discussion-based" classes in which the student is given no other instruction than to "read the textbook" - such professors contribute nothing yet get paid in full. When teachers do not present material in a clear, thought out, and interesting manner, the student can become very discouraged and the learning process is heavily impeded. It is a far from ideal outcome to cause some students to have anxiety attacks and others to give up entirely. More needs to be done to address this problem.

The controversy that arises from this Pay-To-Behave experiment also merits attention. A question that inevitably arises is, "Even if these financial incentives greatly increase academic performance, is teaching children to learn solely for money to be desired?" Some would probably argue that it is no different than receiving an allowance for doing chores or a paycheck for a job, but I am still not entirely sure how I would feel if I were one of the parents. I am not sure I would be comfortable sending a child through this program if I thought it would cause them to place money above everything else.