Lec 6 - Final Flashcards
1
Q
Paper: SDT motivations
- 2 types of motivation - what they do
- 2 types of autonomous motivation
- 3 benefits
- Define controlled motivation
- 2 levels motivation operates on
A
- Autonomous motivation vs controlled motivation
- Autonomous motivation: contains intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
- Controlled motivation: includes external regulation (one’ b is a fx of external contingencies of reward & punishment and regulations)
- External regulation partially internalized promoted by factors like approval motive, avoidance of shame, contingent SE, ego
- When ppl are controlled, they feel pressure to think, behave, feel in particular ways
- Both autonomous and controlled motivation promote and direct b
- Autonomous motivation -? Greater psych health and effective performance on heuristic types activities
- Lead to greater LT persistence
- Studies using priming methods and implicit methods show how motivational processes and principles of SDT operate at the conscious and nonconscious lv
2
Q
Paper: SDT and needs
- Are need innate or learnt
- Individuals differences are based on motivation or need satisfaction?
- 3 Causality orientation
- What can they predict
A
- Point: needs are learnt; some ppl dev stronger needs than others
- Since the need for competence, relatedness and autonomy are universal, indiv diff is not based on strength of motivation, but on the degree whether needs are satisfied
Causality orientation
- Causality orientation: general motivational orientations that refer to
- A: the way ppl orient to the env on info related to initiating and regulating b
- B: the extent to which they are self-determined across situation and domains
- There are 3 orientations:
- Autonomous: strong autonomous orientation results from ongoing satisfaction of 3 basic needs
- Controlled: strong controlled orientation is from satisfaction of competence and relatedness need, but thwarting need for autonomy
- Impersonal: impersonal orientation results from a general thwarting of all 3 needs
- One or more of these can be used to predict psych hand b outcomes
- Autonomy orientation: related to wellbeing and effective b
- Controlled orientation: related to regulation via introjects (unconsciously) and external contingencies, rigid fx, diminished well-being,
- Impersonal orientation: related to poor fx and illbeing, serf derogation and lack vitality
3
Q
Paper: SDT and goals, mindfulness and energy
- 2 types of life goals/aspirations
- Is it learnt
- Needs vs aspirations
- What do ppl do when needs are not fulfilled
- What is mindfulness associated w/?
- In SDT, where does energy come from?
- Define vitality
- What process is vitalizing?
A
Aspirations or life goals
- SDT work focus on LT goal ppl guide activities
- 2 categories
- Intrinsic aspirations
- Ex. life goals like affiliation, personal dev
- Extrinsic aspirations
- Ex. goals like wealth, fame, attractiveness
- Emphasis on intrinsic goals is associated w/ greater health, wellbeing and performance
- They are not needs
- Needs are needed rather than learn desires
- When needs are thwarted, ppl tend to adopt extrinsic goals that lead to external indicators of worth rather than internal feelings of worth
- Extrinsic goals still fail to foster wellness when attained
Mindfulness
- Mindfulness: open awareness and interested attention to what is happening w/in and around oneself
- Mindfulness is associated w/ autonomous motivation and many +ve psych and b outcomes
- It allows inner exploration, reflecting on needs and feelings, and dev of autonomous orientation
Energy and vitality
- Motivation is related to energizing ppl’s psych processes and b
- In SDT, the energy for action comes directly/indirectly from basic psych needs
- Rs are interested in vitality
- Vitality: the energy available to the self; energy that makes you feel exhilarated, empowered, and allow ppl to act more autonomously and persist
- Autonomous regulation is not depleting but can be vitalizing
- SDT posit that controlled motives drain energy, action that lead to need satisfaction can enhance energy available for SR
4
Q
TB
- Conflict goals and happiness
- Income lv and ST vs LT goal
- Proximal vs distal goal and learning results
- 2 reasons why HS students do better w/ proximal goals than elementary
A
- Conflicting goals
- IOW: The more goals conflict, the more ppl get stuck, and they get more unhappy and unhealthy
- High income ppl tend to look further in the future than low income
- Ex. low income needs to pay rent and don’t hv time to think about LT
- Also, due to ST thinking -> can’t pay rent
- Proximal goals (ST); distal goals (LT)
- Bandura & Schunk
- Examine kids 7-10 struggling w/ math
- Kids took course in self-directed learning, many exercises
- Gp 1: set proximanl goals: do at least 6 pages’ of problems each session
- Gp 2: set a distal goal – complete 42 pages by the end of 7 sessions
- Gp 3: didn’t set goals
- Gp 4: didn’t do exercise
- Results: those set proximal goals had improved learning, self-efficacy, and performance
- Learn better and faster; they spent less time but got more done
- When faced w/ hard problems -> persevered longer
- Other study
- HS students w/ distal/LT goals do better in school
- Explanation 1: HS students can see a clear connection b/w daily tasks and LT goals
- Superior students: used LT goals and ST goals (take vital steps to goal)
- Explanation 2: older students are better at thinking about the future than younger students
- Other study
- Despite they may not perfectly achieve their ST and LT goals, they came very close to them
5
Q
TB: Planning
- daily vs monthly vs no plans
- 3 cons of daily plans
- 4 Ds in system
- Tickler file system
- 2 steps to elim distractions
A
vs Fussy
- Rs examine college students in a program that improve their study skills
- Each receive instructions on how to use time effectively
- Then were randomly assigned to 3 planning conditions
- Gp 1: make daily plans for what, where, when to study
- Gp 2: made similar plans each month
- Gp 3: controls = no plans
- Rs predict daily plan gp would work best
- Results
- But monthly planning gp did best -> improved most in study habits and attitudes
- Daily plans adv: person know exactly what to do at each moment
- Con: time consuming to make 30 plans in one go
- Lack flexibility – person is fixed into rigid schedule
- Demoralizing if you fall off schedule
- Monthly plans: make adjustments if there’s a delay
- 4 Ds in system: Done, not done, delegated, dropped
- Tickler file (30 folders per month)
- Once you hv a meeting, you file it away in the appropriate folder (ex. mark it in calendar)
- This removes the source of worry, as you know you would be reminded to deal w/ it on the appropriate day
- This eliminates mental nagging
- Agreements you make w/ yourself are important
- You should write it down, and keep the agreement
- Dean Acheson
- To elim distractions, you write down everything that has your attention (large, small, professional, personal, etc)
- You don’t hv to analyze/ organize/ schedule anything
- Need to identify the specific next action to take (NEXT ACTION)
6
Q
TB: Zeigarnik effect
- 3 theories on Z effect
- Make plans and Z effect
- Best theory/explanation
A
Zeigarnik effect is explained by 2 rival theories
- Unconscious mind is keep tracking of your goals and work to ensure they’re accomplished;
- The unconscious mind is seeking help from conscious mind
* Like a small kid ask adult attention and help; unconscious mind tell conscious mind to finish the task
- The unconscious mind is seeking help from conscious mind
- 3 Masicampo – provided a better explanation
- Experimental condition: Assigned students to think about their most important final exam
- Half: told to make specific plans of what, where, and when they would study
- No one actually studied
- Control condition: think about the most important party on their calendar
- Everyone did a task that measured the Zeigarnik effect
- Given word fragments to complete w/ words relevant or irrelevant to studying
- Ex. re_ _ can be read, real, rest, etc
- Ex. ex _ _ can be exam, exit
- If thoughts on unfilled task of studying for exam who on the person’s mind, he/she generate more exam related words due to Zeignarik effect
- Results: the words popped up more often to those who hv been reminded of the exam but hadn’t made plans to study
- No such effect among students who made a study plan; minds were cleared for those who made a plan
- Experimental condition: Assigned students to think about their most important final exam
- Exp:
- Ppl reflect on important projects in life
- Gp 1: to write down tasks they recently completed
- Gp 2: told to write about unfulfilled tasks that need to be done
- Gp 3: write about unfulfilled tasks, and make specific plans to get them done
- Everyone went on to what they were told was an unrelated exp = read first 10 pages of a novel
- While reading, they were checked regularly to see if their minds had wandered
- They were tested on how well they understood what they’d read
- Results:
- Those wrote about unfulfilled tasks can’t keep minds focused on novel
- Those wrote about unfulfilled tasks and made a specific plan to complete it -> less mind wandering and scored well on reading comprehension test
- Act og making a plan cleared their mind and remove Zeigarnik effect
- Zeigarnik effect remain for those w/o a plan -> mind wandering b/w novel and unfulfilled task -> worse on comprehension task
- Zeigarnik effect: reminder that continues until the task is done
- Persisting distracting thoughts is not unconscious working to finish a task; not unconscious telling conscious mind to complete task ASAP
- Here, unconscious asks the conscious mind to make a plan that specifies time, place, opportunity
- The unconscious mind can’t do it; once plan it down, unconscious mind stops nagging
7
Q
TB: Self-awareness
- Define Self awareness
- How does SA help us feel better - 2 ways
- EVO value of SA
- What type of changes should we make to reach goal?
- How can we be content?
A
- Self awareness: compare self to standards
- Rs showed
- Ppl make themselves feel better by
- Compare themselves to the avg person/ someone we think is inferior
- Compare current selves to past selves (we think we are improving w/ age)
- Ppl make themselves feel better by
- Carver and Scheier – insight
- Self-awareness evolved as it helps self-regulation
- Study
- Examine ppl sitting at a desk that has a mirror
- Results
- If ppl can see themselves in the mirror, they were more likely to follow their inner values instead of other’s orders
- When told to deliver shocks, mirror made ppl more restrained, less aggressive
- Mirror prompted them to work harder
- When someone tried to bully them to change their opinion about smth, they were more likely to resist the bullying and stick to their opinion
- Exp
- Trick or treaters visit psychologist -> sent to side room and told to get only one piece of candy
- If the mirror was turned backward against the wall, kids violate the rule
- When mirror was facing frontward, they can see themselves, and were more likely to resist the temptation even they were disguised by a Halloween costume
- -> felt self-conscious to do the right thing
- Ancestors lived in groups that rewarded members who live up to common values
- Those who can adjust b to meet those standards fared better
- Use devices to monitor self help us meet goals (more exercise and sleep)
- Make small incremental changes ($500 → $450)
- Fishbach & Minjung Koo
- Asked employees at Korean ad agency to describe their role and projects
- Randomly assigned to reflect on what they had achieved thus far OR what they plan to achieve but had not yet accomplished
- Results
- Those who wrote about what they had achieved had higher satisfaction w/ current tasks and projects
- Those who wrote about what they still need to achieve are more motivated to reach their goals and move onto challenging new projects
- They were content w/ where they were and what they are doing
- IOW: to be content -> look at how far you’ve come; to be motivated -> look at the road ahead
- You can gain benefits by comparing yourself due to apps/data
- Ex. Mint: see you expenditure on rent, restaurants, clothing compared to neighbor and national avg
8
Q
L: Goals
- 2 types of goals
- SC vs SR
A
Goals defined
- Goal: Cognitive representation of desired/undesired end-point that impacts thoughts. Emotions, & behaviors
- There are +Ve and -ve goals (-ve = want to avoid; +Ve opp)
- Examples of goals I have:
- +ve goals
- Stay calm with my children
- Write a book
- -ve goals
- Avoid typos on my slides (and tests!)
- Avoid reading words
- +ve goals
- Intimately related to self-control (SC) & self-regulation (SR)
- SC: Advancing goal when goals are in conflict
- SR: Pursuit of goal-directed behavior
9
Q
L: Goals system theory
- define GST
- Define spreading activation
- When does activation stop?
A
Goal systems theory
- Structure of goals
- Exists as cognitive representation in memory (including implicit representation)
- Organized as interconnected hierarchy, with goals connected to multiple sub-goals and means to achieve goals
- Ex. Goal: excel at being a prof (broad goal)
- Sub-goals: Evaluated on teaching, research, and service in the field
- Means to teach well
- Read in advance
- Organize materials
- Create tests
- Provide feedback
- Means to organize materials
- Create slides
- Means to create slides
- Add format, images
- Write content
- Means to write content
- Proofread, get feedback
- Fluctuates in accessibility, varying across time and situation
- Ex. while I’m teaching, the goal of teach well is accessible/active
- While I’m teaching, my service goals is not activated
-
Spreading activation between goals and sub-goals
- Ex. when teach well goal is active
- All the means related to the goal is activated
- Means to teach well
- Read in advance
- Organize materials
- Create tests
- Provide feedback
- Means to organize materials
- Create slides
- Means to create slides
- Add format, images
- Write content
- Means to write content
- Proofread, get feedback
- Means to teach well
- Some are stronger (ex. read in advance) some are weaker, getting feedback
- All the means related to the goal is activated
- Activation only travels downward
- Connection can be excitatory or inhibitory
- Ex. when teaching, the means of delivering of a goals is activated; while creating tests in inhibited
- Strength of goal activation only dissipates when goal reached
- Aka Zeigarnik effect
*
- Aka Zeigarnik effect
- Ex. when teach well goal is active
10
Q
L: Cybernetic model
- 4 elements
- Brain parts responsible for
- Goal set
- Monitor
- Implement
- 2 types of feedback loops
- what they each do
A
How to reach goals - Cybernetic model of goal regulation
- Charles Carver & Michael Scheier
- Model has 4 elements
- Start off by setting a goal (ex. teach well)
- Conflict monitoring system
* Compares your goal w/ the current state of env
* Detecting discrepancies/conflicts
* Ex. goal = teach well; env = am I actually teaching well
* If I didn’t teach well => conflict
- Conflict monitoring system
- This info feeds into implementing system
* This is the motor for control & SR
- This info feeds into implementing system
- I see the discrepancy b/w what I want and what I am doing; now I need to engage in immediate action for this conflict
- Ex. Now a reflect where it went wrong – was I talking too fast, there was too much material covered
- Now I teach again with the improvements (feeds back into current state)
- This works for humans and machines
- Ex: Thermostat
- Goal = 20 dC
- Conflict monitoring system: thermostat measures the current temp (current state); compares the temp b/w current state and goal
- Implementing system: if there is a discrepancy (goal = 20; current state = 18dC), thermostat blow hot air to change temp
- regulation of body temperature
- Regulation of excel-at-work goal
- Rs theorize each part of the cybernetic model is controlled by a brain part (except current state)
- Goal set point = done by PFC, goal or ideal image stored in hippocampus
- conflict monitoring system: anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)
- Compares the goal/ideal image to our current state
- Implementing system: if there’s conflict, ACC sends signal to the dorsal ACC to implement action plan
- There are 2 types of loops
- +ve and -v feedback loops
- -ve feedback: reduces the discrepancy b/w where you want and where you are rn
- Ex. temperature
- +ve: increase distance (discrepancy) b/w your goal (avoid typos) and where you are (mistake prone)
- IOW: result= you are far from making typos
11
Q
L: Z effect
- Why is there Z effect? Which 2 parts of cybernetic model is it related to?
- how?
- Recall for solved vs unsolved anagrams
A
Goals are sticky I - Zeigarnik effect
- Ziegarnik effect: tend to have stronger mem (and intrusive thoughts) about uncompleted goals;
- Kurt Lewin’s waiter at the beer garden
- noticed that a waiter had better recollections of still unpaid orders.
- However, after the completion of the task – after all had paid – he was unable to remember any more details of the orders.
- Zeigarnik then designed a series of experiments to uncover the processes underlying this phenomenon.
- Increases the desire (even compulsion) to complete the goal
- My son Jonah’s math homework; my compulsion to fix closet
-
Why?
- Incomplete goals arouse monitoring system (Lewin’s waiter), increase goal-related thoughts
- When goal completed, no longer need to monitor it
- When goals activated, implementing system inhibits/shields other goals
- Incomplete goals arouse monitoring system (Lewin’s waiter), increase goal-related thoughts
Ziegarnik effect on recall
Baddeley, 1963
- Hypothesis: uncompleted tasks will be better remembered
- 28 navy cadets given goal to solve 12 scrambled anagrams (LOW POWER)
- ASUGR ENACD WTLOE
- Given 1 minute per anagram
- If unsolved, solution provided (sugar, dance, towel)
- W/in subject design
- At end, listed as many of the solutions as recalled
- Results: they have better recall for anagrams they didn’t solve (55%) compared to those they solved (35%)
- NOTE: there are other v
- Apart from an unsolved goal, they also received -ve feedback (had solution at the end)
- It is consistent w/ Zeigarnik effect; but not conclusive
12
Q
L:Goal scheiding effect
- Approach-approach conflict
- Define Goal Shielding
- Lexical decision task
- Method - 3 steps
- Why do we never see happy prime words w/ happy target?
- Results
- Intergoal inhibition effect
A
Goal shielding
- Q: How to pursue one goal, when we have so many goals to pursue? (ex. I have excel at work, be good dad, stay active goals)
- Ex. spending time w/ kids (be good dad goal) conflicts w/ produce rs (excel at work goal) and workout (stay active goal)
- How do we resolve approach-approach conflict?
* Approach-approach conflict: I want to approach all 3 goals; but if I want to do well at work, I can’t be a good dad and stay active as it take away from the initial goal
- How do we resolve approach-approach conflict?
-
A: Strong focus on current goal, “forgetting” all else (forgetting = not active in WM)
- Goal shielding: Inhibition of alternative goals that compete for attention
- Especially for those who are strongly committed to the proximal goal
- Ex. for those who are committed to goals (goals are super important to them), they are more likely to engage in goal shielding (deactivate conflicting goals at that moment)
Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002
- Hypothesis: When reminded of one goal, slower to process other goals
- Ppl list 3 personal goals
* E.g., be happy, exercise, etc.
- Ppl list 3 personal goals
- Perform Lexical Decision Task
* RT[EL1] task
* Ppl make a lexical decision (determine meaning of the word) ASAP- see “prime” word (flashed for 50ms)
* “Personal goal” word – Ex. happy
* Control word – ex. house
- see “prime” word (flashed for 50ms)
- See “target” word
* Target w can be Goals – Ex. exercise (related to your goals)
* Target w can be control word – Ex. House (not related to goal)
- See “target” word
- then eval target word (lexical decision)
* Indicate if target is goal vs non-goal
- then eval target word (lexical decision)
- Perform Lexical Decision Task
- Ex. See Prime (happy) -> see target (exercise) -> eval (yes, it is a goal) -> RT recorded
- Prime and target words are different
- We never see happy (prime) followed by happy (target)
- This is b/c when the goal is active in our WM, we know ppl are quicker to recognize them and the RT is going tb short
- Results - goal shielding is real:
- When presented w/ the prime goal (ex. happy), all ideas related to “happy” is activated while other goals are deactivated
- So, ppl are slower to recognize the target word (exercise) is their goal b/c it competes w/ the prime goal (happy)
- H: you should be slower to recognize
- Ex. you won’t see happy (prime) then happy (target)
- Conclusion: when a specific goal is active, other conflicting goals are less active (IOW: takes more time to recognize conflicting goals are also your goals – as seen in RT of lexical decision task)
- Inter-goal inhibition much stronger for those high in goal commitment
- IOW: for those who are super committed to goal 1 (ex. happy), they show a bigger difference (aka takes way longer to recognize goal 2 is also their goal)
- Work on goal 1, goal 1 enters WM, shields other goals from entering WM
[EL1]Will be tested
13
Q
L: Goal setting theory
- Define the theory
A
Goal setting theory
- Setting the goal (by writing it down/ verbalizing it) help you reach the goal
- Goal setting is the 1st step in SC
- If you don’t have a goal, nothing will conflict w/ that goal, so you hv nothing to control
- Goal setting theory: Setting specific and hard goals leads to better performance than vague, easy, or abstract goals
- Ex. “Start library research for op-ed term paper vs “Try one’s best in C19 class”
- Setting goals is a discrepancy creating process
- Goals allow for feedback on goal progress
- Supported by lab and field studies worldwide
SMART goals and lumberjacks
- SMART: specific, measurable, attainable (should be challenging), relevant (???), time-bound
- Study on lumberjacks
- The more trees they cut down, the more they get paid
- Those who set a hard goal (ex. cut 75 trees vs I just want to get paid) cut down more trees
14
Q
L: Motivation
- Define motivation
- 2 defining features
- Motivation is driven by 2 types of goals
- 2 types of goals
- Exception
- 4 measurements of motivation
- Frowning - 2 things it measures
- Effort discounting task
- Method
- 2 Results
- Size of reward
- Who the reward for
A
Motivation defined
- Intimately related to goals
- Motivation = Psychological force that drives behavior and that consists of:
- direction (goal)
- intensity or amplitude with which direction is pursued (effort)
- How motivated are you by: chocolate, sex?
-
Note: Motivation driven both by “wanting” (anticipation of goal) and “liking” (consuming goal)
- Ex. anticipation goal: I really want chocolate, I work hard to get money to buy chocolate
- Ex. Consuming goal: how much enjoyment you get
- But really wanting chocolate doesn’t mean that you really like chocolate
- Most of the time they go hand in hand
- Exception: addiction
- Addicts really want the drug, but may not enjoy the effects of it at all
Measurement of motivation
-
Self-report: Ask ppl how motivated they are
- Ex. How much do you like chocolate?
- Ex. How important is chocolate to you?
- NOTE: Typical problems with self-report
- Do ppl even know what lv of motivation they have?
- Ex. intrinsically you really want to have sex, but you report you are not motivated b/c you are part of a religious community that prohibits premarital sex
-
Measure pupil dilation
- When you are aroused, your pupils dilate
-
Measure Corrugator supercilia
- Muscle that makes you frown
- +ve vs -ve image
- When ppl are exposed to +ve image, the release this muscle
- -ve image -> frown
- It also measures effort
- If you are working really hard on smth (ex get chocolate), you frown
-
Measure physical effort
- Ex. You say you like chocolate
- Rs say you need to run 500 m to get it
- Those ppl who ran the 500 m are seen as more motivated to get chocolate
- Patricia Lockwood et al., 2017
- Effort discounting task
- Ask ppl how much physical effort are you willing to put to get a reward
- Results
- 1 The bigger the reward, ppl are more willing push the hand tool even though it hurts
- 2 ppl are less willing to exert effort if the reward is for someone else
- Patricia Lockwood et al., 2017
15
Q
L: Motivation and cognitive control
- Motivation and SC
- Stroop task performance
- rewarded vs not rewarded
- Stroop task performance
A
Motivation improves control
- Motivational incentives improve many aspects of control
- It impacts all aspects of Control
- Updating
- Switching
- Inhibition
- Brain bases of control too
- especially proactive control reducing conflict responses in ACC
- Srikanth Padmalla & Luiz Pessoa, 2011
- Methods: House building stroop task
- Shown image of building, w/ word house
- Give response (need to say building instead of house)
- Feedback on whether you get points or not
- Results
- When participants are rewarded, they
- Incongruent trials – neutral trials
- Long RT for those w/o rewards
- Faster response for those w/ rewards
- Congruent trials – neutral trials
- Congruent: building image and building word
- No rewards: ppl are sig faster in congruent trials
- Rewards: ppl aren’t sig faster
- This suggests ppl are actually paying attention to the instructions
- They have better cog control when they are rewarded
- Results
- Methods: House building stroop task
