His Theory X was that people avoid work because they don't like it. People who meet the criteria for theory x are not ambitious, they want to do the minimum of work required, and they only complete tasks for job security. On the other hand, "Theory Y" refers to people who are creative and want responsibility.
These people are usually ambitious and gain satisfaction from work. McGregor believed that if the motives behind work were understood, managers could meet workers on their level and use the correct strategies to motivate each type. For example, if you are a theory x worker, then you won't be motivated to try harder if the reward was a promotion.
To you, a promotion would mean more responsibility and more work that you didn't want to do. Therefore, I would need to use tactics such as performance reviews that you would need to score highly on to keep your job.
David McClelland David McClelland proposed the theory that people not only have needs, but they develop more needs as they mature. His theory, the acquired needs theory, consisted of 3 specific needs; achievement, affiliation, and power. Achievement is the need to master tasks and be successful. Affiliation is the need to form positive relationships. And lastly, power is the need to be in control or have authority over others.
McClelland hypothesized that our experiences, particularly our early experiences as children, determined which of these three needs would develop and to what degree. Therefore, I as an adult have a need to control others power then power and control were things that were reinforced as a child or something happened that made me want to control others. Victor Vroom Victor Vroom was responsible for the expectancy theory.
This theory states that if an individual believes he or she can do something then he or she is more likely to accomplish it. Thoughts and effort are vital to this theory because if someone does not think they are able to do a task, he or she is not likely to put forth much effort. Therefore, motivation is decreased.
Failure does not motivate a person to try harder. Successes, even if they are small, motivate people to improve. Stacy Adams Stacy Adams' theory, equity theory, is based on comparisons and equality. She believed that people were motivated if they felt they were receiving compensation that was equal to what others received. A common plot of high school depictions on television is the situation in which one student is discriminated to the point that he or she always receives low scores no matter what homework is turned in.
In this plot, no one believes the student so he or she switches homework with a fellow classmate known for getting high grades. In the end, the student still gets a low grade and the A student does well despite the fact that they switched homework. This is an example of how inequality would result in a decrease of motivation for both students. The "A" student would not feel validated for his or her effort and the other student would possibly quit.
According to Stacy's theory, if there is inequality or "inequity" then individuals will increase or decrease their effort, they may contest the inequality and request fairness, or they may even quit entirely.
Skinner Skinner believed that people are motivated by rewards. Skinner's theory, operant conditioning, concerns reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is a stimulus that is given immediately after a behavior that will increase the likelihood that the target behavior will be repeated.
Punishment is a stimulus that is given immediately after a behavior that will decrease the likelihood that the target behavior will be repeated. Reinforcement and Punishment are also further divided into 2 types, positive and negative.
Positive is something that is added while negative means something has been taken away. These types are outlined in the following table:. An example of a powerful negative reinforcer is a screaming child.
The sound is so annoying that many adults will give the child anything he or she wants in order to get the screaming to stop. The child will stop screaming take away the piercing sound when the adult gives him or her candy increase likelihood that behavior occurs. Therefore, the child used negative reinforcement to motivate the adult to action, e. It is an urge to behave or act in a way that will satisfy certain conditions, such as wishes, desires, or goals.
Older theories of motivation stated that rational thought and reason were the guiding factors in human motivation; however, psychologists now believe that motivation may be rooted in basic impulses to optimize well-being, minimize physical pain, and maximize pleasure. Motivations are commonly separated into drives and motives.
Drives are primarily biological, like thirst, hunger, sleepiness, and the need to reproduce—all of which lead us to seek out and take part in certain activities. Drives are believed to originate within a person and may not require external stimuli to encourage behavior. Motives, on the other hand, are primarily driven by social and psychological mechanisms, such as work, family, and relationships.
They include factors like praise and approval. Both drives and motives can be manipulated by stimulation and deprivation.
Motivation can be stimulated by uncomfortable or aversive conditions or events shocks, loud noise, or excessive heat or cold can motivate us to seek better conditions or by attractions to positive or pleasurable conditions or events such as food or sex. Motivation can be intrinsic arising from internal factors or extrinsic arising from external factors. Intrinsically-motivated behaviors are generated by the sense of personal satisfaction that they bring. They are driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself that comes from the individual, not society.
For example, if you are in college because you enjoy learning and want to make yourself a more well-rounded individual, you are intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation is a critical element in cognitive, social, and physical development; those individuals who are intrinsically motivated are likely to perform better and improve their skills at a given task. Extrinsically-motivated behaviors, in contrast, are performed in order to receive something from others.
This is precisely how SDT researchers have worked with game designers to increase user engagement in digital games see Rigby and Ryan, ; Przybylski et al. Figure 4 shows an example of how SDT-based measures might be incorporated along the timeline of a wellbeing-supportive HCI project.
Figure 4. Evaluation timeline example — Example timeline of a wellbeing-supportive technology project highlighting the points at which SDT-based measures might be used for evaluation. METUX spheres are listed along the bottom. The PNSES is specific to exercise but would be replaced by an adaptation to the behavior domain relevant to the project.
For three of the spheres we propose novel adaptations of existing SDT-based questionnaires adapted for the technology context. These are provided in Appendices 1—4. References to the literature available on the SDT-based measures discussed, along with links to many instruments, are available on the Self-determination theory website www. The questionnaire results range from amotivated, to controlled, to autonomous, with distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as elaborated previously in Figure 2.
We have also argued that adoption will be mediated by anticipated competence and for this we recommend an adaptation of the Perceived Competence Scale PCS. The original PCS includes 4 questions, and, in the context of technology adoption, only two would be relevant. These two can be added to an adapted SRQ to form a basic technology adoption questionnaire based on psychological need satisfaction.
There has been considerable research into the adoption, intended use, and acceptance of technologies which has focused on other factors including demographic characteristics, traits, or variables to do with a specific domain. The specific research questions relating to a particular technology project will determine which measures are best suited to that project, however, we provide a measure based on psychological need satisfaction in order to provide a complete and theoretically consistent approach to the evaluation of technologies at all levels.
Among the most common measures for evaluating a technology interface are questionnaires like the System Usability Scale Bangor et al. While usability measures can be useful in identifying obstacles to engagement, high usability does not necessarily predict high engagement or positive experience Febretti and Garzotto, The PENS has been used to assess the experience of need satisfaction and user experience in video game contexts and has been refined in its ongoing use see Rigby and Ryan, It assesses both the degree to which the user experiences mastery of the interface, need satisfaction during use, and qualities such as immersion and includes a number of questions only relevant to gaming that can be excluded for adaptation to other technologies.
Because the PENS was developed for use in video games, for which, uniquely, the technology itself provides the activity it supports, the PENS also evaluates need satisfaction within the task sphere. The TENS-Task can be used to measure psychological need satisfaction provided by engagement with technology-supported tasks. As discussed earlier, a technology generally mediates or supports a behavior in ways that are more or less satisfying to an individual's psychological needs.
The SDT literature provides numerous examples of validated questionnaires for specific behavior domains including exercise, diet improvement, parent-child interaction and learning. However, in many cases there will not already be a questionnaire adapted to the specific behavior in question. Separate to measures of need satisfaction, projects are also likely to include domain-specific outcome measures.
The TENS-Life Technology Effects on Need Satisfaction in Life scale Appendix 4 is introduced as a measure to identify the extent to which users believe a technology has had an impact on need satisfaction in their lives.
Validation data is provided in Appendix 5. Another approach to measuring changes to overall wellbeing is via standard wellbeing measures run pre- and post-use of a technology. This is particularly useful for technology-based psychology interventions. In this paper we have argued that the impact of a technology on the psychological experience and wellbeing of an individual can be better understood, empirically evaluated, and designed for, by targeting basic psychological needs as defined by Self-determination Theory.
In order to ensure a sufficiently broad view of wellbeing i. We present examples of existing SDT-based measures, as well as introduce four new measures that can be used to evaluate need satisfaction at the five levels. According to research, in addition to predicting impact on wellbeing, motivation and sustained engagement with technology, SDT measures also predict the fulfillment of domain-specific outcomes such as health or educational outcomes making SDT an ideal basis for understanding and improving other common goals within technology projects.
Of course, a number of limitations should be noted. The measures presented are initial iterations that will require more thorough validation and refinement in response to usage over time. Moreover, the spheres themselves are approximations and other delineations may very well prove more useful overall or within different contexts. Finally, SDT, while a mature theory with robust support, remains a psychological theory open to ongoing interrogation. Further research on all fronts with regard to the measures, the HCI implementation and the psychological basis in the technology context is required and it is our hope that the theory and measures provided herein can form a useful starting point.
Our intention is that the model and instruments provided will enable technology designers to evaluate their technologies for wellbeing impact, and allow HCI researchers tools and theory upon which to improve. In this way, as a community we may iterate collectively toward a future in which all technologies are better designed to support psychological wellbeing and human potential. All subjects gave informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Emma Bradshaw to the analysis of the initial validation. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior.
Baldassarre, G. Intrinsic motivations and open-ended development in animals, humans, and robots: an overview. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bangor, A. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Bartholomew, K. Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting.
Baumeister, R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Beauchamp, T. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. PubMed Abstract Google Scholar. Belman, J. Designing Games to Foster Empathy. Google Scholar. Broeck, A. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Burke, M. Social network activity and social well-being. Calvo, R. Well Being Chatila, R.
The IEEE global initiative for ethical considerations in artificial intelligence and autonomous systems [standards]. IEEE Robot. Chatzisarantis, N. A meta-analysis of perceived locus of causality in exercise, sport, and physical education contexts. Sport Exer. Chen, K. Motivation in online learning: testing a model of self-determination theory.
Human Behav. Chen, B. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Davis, F. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart.
Deci, E. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Desmet, P. Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. Design 7, 5— Diener, E. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Febretti, A. Ford, M. Friedman, B. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 16— Self-determination theory and work motivation. The role of atonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behaviour enagement.
Grieve, R. The psychological benefits of being authentic on Facebook. Hagger, M. Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Hassenzahl, M. Needs, affect, and interactive products — Facets of user experience.
Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Hefner, D. Reinecke ansd M. Hekler, E. Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research. CHI , — Hudson, M. Examining how gender and emoticons influence Facebook jealousy.
Huppert, F. Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Jansen, A. Karapanos, E. Well-Being Kasser, T.
Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Klasnja, P.
Kushlev, K. Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Lamers, S. Lomas, J. Long, J. Misra, S. The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices.
Ng, J. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis. Norman, D. Introduction to this special section on beauty, goodness, and usability. Peng, W. Need satisfaction supportive game features as motivational determinants: an experimental study of a self-determination theory guided exergame.
Media Psychol. Peters, D. Compassion vs. Interactions 21, 48— Przybylski, A. Can you connect with me now?
0コメント