Follow-up motivation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When connecting motivation that is motivation meant that the social life in groups controls and a natural desire of people to connect and fear is being rejected.

Origin of social ties

Fundamental to the development of social bonds or relationships is given in research the formation of various behavior systems, which should ultimately ensure reproduction . What is essential for these evolved systems is the assumption that the organism is oriented towards the achievement of certain goals and thus determines action and behavior. These systems and thus also the generated goals and motives represent an essential part of human nature. Therefore, there is also much to suggest that the motives that control social life in groups are based on evolved structures. These motives include different forms of social ties such as child love, parental love, spouse love or friendships. These motifs are the basis for describing people as "social beings".

In terms of evolutionary history, brood care can be seen as a central necessity for the evolution of attachment behavior. The first form of personal ties developed from it. This permanent bond between the child and the mother and the resulting familiarization are the central starting point for further building bonds. The need for close and satisfying ties in a growing child can be used as a biological basis for follow-up motivation.

Attachment Theory Approaches

The research into mother-child bond was carried out in several steps. In 1958 , John Bowlby laid the foundation for the biological attachment theory. He started out from natural stimuli that lie in being together or being reunited with the mother. Mother and child are therefore predisposed to receive signals and to react to them. This creates the first individualized bond in the first year of life.

More differentiated research was carried out by Mary Ainsworth in 1978. The quality of the mother-child bond was determined with the help of the strange situation test . The four types into which the qualities were divided were:

  • the secure attachment type
  • the insecure attachment type
  • the avoidant attachment type and
  • the ambivalent attachment type

Regardless of the causes of the types, a number of similarities can be seen with highly or low-motivated adults.

Research on follow-up motivation

Research into connection motivation begins in 1938, with Henry Murray's first attempts at definition and measurement . He classified needs in connection with motives, one of which was the higher general social need to be attracted to other people . Subordinate to this is the need for connection. He named the following possible goals: to be close to others, to cooperate, to exchange ideas and to be friends with others. Follow-up actions would include: making acquaintances, pleasing others, avoiding offending others and showing goodwill and affection. The emotions involved are trust , empathy , love and sympathy .

From a historical perspective of research on follow-up motivation, two phases can be identified.

Phase 1

The first phase was characterized by the assumption that connection behavior varies with connection needs. Only fear and insecurity arouse the need to connect. The drive reduction model from Clark Hull was used as the basis for this .

The researchers saw the reduction of fear or insecurity as the central goal of connecting behavior.

Phase 2

In the 2nd phase of the research, in contrast to the first, the focus was not on the avoiding component, namely the fear of rejection, but on the outreach component "hope of connection".

Using a TAT- like method, it was found that the visiting component is more pronounced in popular people and the avoiding component is lower than in unpopular people.

Hope for a connection

Hope is made up of two parts. There is the cognitive and the emotional side. Hope can be understood as a special emotional state and thus the leader of motivated experience and action.

On the cognitive side, hope is a mix of different expectation types.

These are:

  • Situation-result-expectation: How likely is it that the desired result will be achieved without any action?
  • Action-result expectation: How likely is it that my actions will lead to the desired result?
  • Result-consequence expectation: How likely is it that the result will lead to the desired consequences?

Only the first two types of expectation are suitable for differentiating between people with a high or low connection motivation. Highly motivated people expect a situation to be more suitable for making contact and feel more comfortable in it. They also feel this in more situations than those with low follow-up motivation. With the second type of expectation, the more highly motivated also tend to expect that their actions will lead to the expected goal, namely to make friends.

With regard to emotions, it can be said that the higher expectations are accompanied by positive emotions such as self-confidence and relaxation. Both positive expectation and positive emotions result in more goal-oriented behavior than in people with low motivation.

Another characteristic of highly motivated individuals is the emotional response to acceptance or rejection in a group. These people react more strongly in the form of joy or helplessness. The lower the motivation to follow up, the more "indifferent" the reaction is.

Merabian and Ksionsky list the following characteristics for highly motivated people:

  • they see others more like themselves
  • they see others in a better light
  • they like others more
  • they are liked more by others
  • their friendly nature makes them infectious
  • they have more confidence and pleasant feelings around others
  • they make behavioral decisions in a more targeted manner in a social context
  • they respond very specifically to recognition and rejection

Fear of rejection

The opposite of the hope of union is the fear of rejection. These people have low action-outcome expectation. This leads to a general doubt about the effectiveness of follow-up action. They are also more willing to perceive unclear and ambiguous signals from the interlocutor as rejection. Here, too, the people react with a high level of fear of rejection in a highly emotional manner. This manifests itself in helplessness, tiredness and despair.

Further characteristics for high fear of rejection

  • they feel overwhelmed in social situations
  • they are less confident in social situations and more tense and anxious
  • they see themselves as less popular and lonely
  • they have less social skills
  • they show intense emotional reactions
  • they show low action-outcome expectation

Measurement of the connection motive

In order to be able to measure the connection motive , various test procedures were developed in order to arrive at specific parameters and to recognize and analyze the characteristics of the connection motive.

Thematic Perception Test (TAT)

During the TAT test, the subjects have to tell fantasy stories based on given, ambiguous images. This is how you want to measure the strength of a subject.

The statements are evaluated according to a specific content key. If the content key shows that there is a connection motif, the story is further analyzed with parameters and calculated.

This type of procedure is now called projective and results in an implicit measurement.

questionnaire

In the 1970s, another form of measurement was created in addition to the TAT test. Here one works with questionnaires, which lead to a self-assessment of the test persons. This means that the parameters are explicitly collected.

Mehrabian's questionnaire in 1974 was developed based on theory, which means that the questionnaires are based on the ideas of the two different tendencies of the connection motive. He calls them "affiliative tendency" (connection tendency; R1) and "sensitivity to rejection" (sensitivity to rejection; R2)

The questionnaires demand a prediction of the behavior in situations with people who are not known. This shows the general expectations of the test persons.

The evaluation of the test on the basis of the two tendencies (R1 / R2) and result in four different types of connection motive:

Types of connection motif

1. Type: R1 high & R2 low: In most situations, your own connection needs are satisfied.

2. Type: R1 low & R2 high: In most situations your own connection needs remain unsatisfied.

3. Type: R1 low & R2 low: Most situations have a low positive or negative connection-thematic affirmative value.

4. Type: R1 high & R2 high: Your own connection needs are either satisfied or rejected.

The different types are a developmental result, which suggests the affirmations in social interactions that the test subject experienced in childhood.

literature

  • Hull, CL: A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. 1952 New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Brandstätter, Veronika / Schüler, Julia / Puca, Rosa Maria / Lozo, Ljubica: Motivation and Emotion General Psychology for Bachelor: Springer, 2013 Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Heckhausen, Jutta, Heckhausen, Heinz: Motivation and Action: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010 Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Großmann, Klaus (ed.): Attachment and human development: John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth and the basics of attachment theory. Klett, 2015 Stuttgart.
  • Ahnert, Liselotte: How much mother does a child need? Bonding-education-mentoring: public and private. 2010 Heidelberg.
  • Mehrabian, A. / Ksionzky, S .: A theory of affiliation. 1974 Lexington, Mass .: Heath.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Veronika Brandstätter, Julia Schüler, Rosa Maria Puca: Motivation and Emotion, General Psychology for Bachelor . Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-30149-0 , pp. 43 .
  2. ↑ K. Solokowski, H. Heckhausen: Social attachment: connection motivation and intimacy motivation . Ed .: Jutta Heckhausen, Heinz Heckhausen. Springer, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12693-2 , pp. 194 .
  3. ↑ Klaus Grossmann (ed.): Attachment and human development: John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth and the basics of attachment theory . Klett, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-608-94936-0 , pp. 22-29 .
  4. ^ Mary Ainsworth: Infant-mother attachment. In: American Psychologist . tape 34 , p. 932-937 .
  5. ↑ a b c d e Cf. K. Sokolowski, Heinz Heckhausen: Social ties: connection motivation and intimacy motivation . Ed .: Jutta Heckhausen, Heinz Heckhausen. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2010, p. 200 .
  6. ↑ Cf. K. Sokolowski, Heinz Heckhausen: Social ties: connection motivation and intimacy motivation . Ed .: Jutta Heckhausen, Heinz Heckhausen. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2010, p. 196 .
  7. ↑ See Hull, CL (1952). A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  8. ↑ Veronika Brandstätter, Julia Schüler, Rosa Maria Puca (ed.): Motivation and Emotion General Psychology for Bachelor . Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2013, p. 44-45 .
  9. ↑ a b See Mehrabian, A. (1970). The development and validation of measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 417-428.
  10. ↑ See Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 445-451.
  11. ↑ See Mehrabian, A. & Ksionzky, S. (1974). A theory of affiliation. Lexington, Mass .: Heath.