d.). A need also frequently serves to answer the question motivational psychologists regularly ask as they explore motives that impel the person people to do what he/she does: "What drives people to do the things they do?" Basic concepts of motive include:
A motive depicts a person's internal state arousing and directing his/her behavior to meet a precise goal and/or objective.
A deficit, a lack of something, contributes to a motive.
Motives vary in amount and type.
Motives evolve from needs: "States of tension within a person, and as need is satisfied, tension is reduced ("Henry Murray's Theory… N.d., Basic Concepts
Section, ¶ 1).
Motives impel the individual to "perceive, think, and act" in particular ways that fulfill his/her need/s (Ibid.).
Henry Murray identified the following "big three motives":
Need for Achievement
Need for Power
Need for Intimacy ("Henry Murray's Theory… N.d., The Big Three Motives
Ikwukananne I. Udechukwu (2009), PhD, NOVA Southeastern University in Florida, focuses on work attitudes like satisfaction; examining Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory in the article, "Correctional officer turnover: of Maslow's needs hierarchy and Herzberg's motivation theory." Maslow's work identifies human activity as critical for "the application of sophisticated psychology theories and techniques that are today dubbed 'management studies' among other rubrics" (Udechukwu 2009, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Section, ¶ 12). It also proves significant as it recognizes the need to scale, or order human needs. Udechukwu explains:
While Maslow suggested that needs, which drive behaviors associated with work attitudes (e. g., satisfaction), can be assigned to various levels, Herzberg made the distinction that needs that influence work attitudes can be met intrinsically or extrinsically. Thus, applying each theory provides a unique perspective on satisfaction in the form of the level and the type of satisfaction to be measured. (Udechukwu 2009 ¶ 3).
Maslow's needs hierarchy and Herzberg's motivation theory comprise two traditional motivational theories. Udechukwu (2009) considered Maslow's theory deficient in completely explaining dissatisfaction with a job or organization as it merely focuses only need levels; not the type of need. Frederick Herzberg, born in 1923 in Massachusetts, however, addressed the distinction between the types of needs reflected in satisfaction in his motivation-hygiene theory. Herzberg, like Maslow, "advocated the diversion of psychology studies from the insane to the sane, and his work would later influence some work concepts we know today, such as 'job context' and 'job content'"(Udechukwu, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 1). Contrary to Maslow's theory, Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory asserts whether or not a person experiences satisfaction with his job or not depends on a number of causes.
Herzberg argued that motivators establish satisfaction, while hygiene factors determine dissatisfaction. Herzberg "defined motivators as intrinsic to the job, and he defined hygiene factors as extrinsic to the job. He also succinctly created a distinction between satisfaction and dissatisfaction" (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 2). Factors that produce "job satisfaction" and motivation distinctly differ from the reasons that contribute to "job dissatisfaction."
Depending whether one examines "job satisfaction" or "job dissatisfaction" determines the separate factors needing to be considered. The feelings of "job satisfaction" and "job dissatisfaction," Udechukwu (2009) argues do not diametrically contradict one another. "The opposite of 'job satisfaction' is not 'job dissatisfaction' but rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of 'job dissatisfaction' is not 'job satisfaction,' but no 'job satisfaction'" (Udechukwu, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 2). An organization needs to do more than simply acknowledge that leaders and/or workers have unmet or met needs. It also proves critical to best identify which particular needs build satisfaction and which needs generate dissatisfaction.
Udechukwu (2009) explains that motivators relate to work aspects of work and include, however, may not be limited to the following:
Work, promotion, achievement, responsibility, and recognition. (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 4)
Hygiene factors, Udechukwu (2009) asserts, reveal the framework in which the individual performs the work and include, however, may not be limited to the following:
Working conditions, interpersonal relations, company polities, salary, and supervision. (Udechukwu 2009, Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Section, ¶ 4)
In some work environments, the work itself as well as internal and external environments may or may not prove to be hospitable to the individual's needs. As Herzberg's work portrays satisfaction horizontally, it differentiates between kinds of satisfaction. Even when an individual experiences a low level of job satisfaction, according to Herzberg, this does not automatically confirm the employee is dissatisfied with/in his job. Similarly, when a person experiences a low level of dissatisfaction in/with his job, this does not necessarily imply the employee is satisfied with/in his job (Udechukwu 2009).
Maslow's Hierarchy theory, contrary to Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory, classifies satisfaction vertically as it directs analysts to scale each need to be completely met or unmet, absolutely satisfied or not satisfied. Maslow's theory demonstrates that measuring, or scaling needs or satisfaction that result in the behavior proves vital as this contributes to the individual's attitude and ensuring behavior/s. To be as useful as possible and enhance the understanding of a concern in the organization, the study of an individual's satisfaction with/in his job, for example, mandates that the researcher identifies the type of satisfaction as well as the individual's satisfaction level through needs (Udechukwu 2009).
The encyclopedia article, "Freud, Sigmund (1856 -- 1939)" (2006) purports that prior to Freud presenting his new theory of the human drives, he had speculated that Eros, which comprises the individual's entwined instincts for love, sex, propagation, and self-preservation served as primary psychological drive for human life. In his controversial 1920 modification of his drive theory, Freud broadened his presumption "to include a second, primary impulse derived from the human capacities for aggression, destruction, and self-destruction. & #8230;. labeled & #8230;'Thanatos' or 'the death instinct'" ("Freud, Sigmund…," Freud's Career After 1914 Section, ¶ 3). Freud's increasing pessimism relating to World War I carnage, contributed to the development of his death instinct percept, which depicted his reportedly biologized view, which he presumed noted a desire for organic life to return to what Freud judged to be an inorganic state. The majority of 21st Century psychoanalysts rejected Freud's concept of a human death instinct, albeit, many accept his broader emphasis on the role of aggression in human nature.
In the book, Dimensions of Human Behavior: Person and Environment, Elizabeth D. Hutchison, Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Virginia Commonwealth University, explains drive theory. Drive theory, also known as instinct theory: "Proposes that human behavior is motivated by two basic instincts, thanatos, or the drive for aggression or destruction, and Eros, or the drive for life (two sexual gratification)" (Hutchison 61). More recent revisions of drive therapy suggest that drives for mastery and for connectedness to also motivate individuals.
The article, "Self-Perception Theory" (2008), asserts that as the self reportedly reflects the sold constant throughout and a person's life serves to validate the value of self-knowledge. Daryl Bem, social psychologist, developed self-perception theory, purportedly one of the most influential, yet simplistic, theories which explains self-knowledge develops. Self-perception theory consists of the following two basic claims.
1. A person comes to know his/her own attitudes, beliefs, and other internal states as they infer them from their personal behavior/s as well as the circumstance/s whereby they occur. For example, a student who observes him/herself regularly reading medical books may infer that he/she has an interest in psychology.
2. When an individual's internal cues prove to be weak, the individual, similar to a person observing him/her from the outside observer, has to rely on external cues of his/her behavior to infer his/her personal inner characteristics. For instance, the absence of external incentives to explain a person's behavior (e.g., grades), when they do not have any prior opinions regarding psychology reinforces the individual's conclusion that he/she honestly likes psychology. The person merely utilizes his/her behavior/s and the circumstances encompassing them to infer his/her personal attitudes and beliefs ("Self-Perception Theory" 2008).
Self-perception theory dramatically contrasts cognitive dissonance theory, the popular, principle psychological theory of how behavior shapes self-knowledge. "Cognitive dissonance theory assumes that people are motivated to maintain consistency between self beliefs and experience an unpleasant state of dissonance when they hold two inconsistent beliefs about the self" ("Self-Perception Theory" 2008 ¶ 3). When inconsistency existing between the person's perceptions, like: "I do not like psychology' and 'I constantly read about psychology' [occur, this] arouses dissonance" (Ibid.). Individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance they experience and strive to change one of the conflicting thoughts. To resolve dissidence, the individual will often make his/her initial attitude more favorable to the newer conflicting perception; consequently matching his/her attitude with his/her behavior.
The following two differences exist between cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory.
1. Cognitive dissonance theory, contrary to self-perception theory does not presume the need for any motivational state like…
FDI in India
India is Ripe for the Picking
India ranks second only to China in its attractiveness as a target for foreign direct investment. Of particular interest are the retail and technology sectors, as well as construction and manufacturing sectors. India is an up and coming market with potential for companies that want to expand into this lucrative land of opportunities. This research examines the opportunities exist in India as well