{"id":93,"date":"2008-07-13T23:19:23","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T23:19:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tameraktas.com\/wptest\/wordpress\/2008\/07\/09\/1-4-motivasyon-kuramlarynyn-synyflandyrylmasy\/"},"modified":"2023-04-01T12:14:40","modified_gmt":"2023-04-01T12:14:40","slug":"motivasyon-kuramlarinin-siniflandirilmasi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-motivasyon.net\/en\/motivasyon-kuramlarinin-siniflandirilmasi.html","title":{"rendered":"Classification of Motivation Theories"},"content":{"rendered":"

Classification of Motivation Theories<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
The Principle of Hedonism underlies most contemporary motivational views. The traces of this principle can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophers (Also, for example, to the writings of English utilitarians such as JS Mill and J. Bentham). The basis of hedonism is the assumption that behavior will be directed towards pleasure and avoid pain. Whenever people make choices among alternative possibilities, the direction of action will be towards maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (Vroom, 1964; 9).<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The hedonistic assumption has no empirical content and does not show a testable feature. Therefore, motivational studies are oriented broadly to fill the gap in empirical content within hedonism. In the hedonistic doctrine, it is assumed that people behave in ways that maximize certain types of outcomes (rewards, gratifications, positive conditionings, etc.) and minimize other outcomes (punishments, displeasure, negative conditioning) (Vroom, 1964, 10). Almost all modern motivational theories assume that people direct their behavior to results they find pleasurable and keep them away from unpleasant ones. Most modern theories strive to overcome this circularity of hedonism (Lawler, 1973; 5).<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Any motivation theory tries to explain the reasons for the behavior of individuals and the processes that cause this behavior. Many theories tend to focus more strongly on one rather than both (Tosi et al., 1990; 268). Motivation theories can be examined in two parts as need-content theories and process theories.<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Need theories are concerned with describing people's drives and their relative strengths, and the goals people pursue to satisfy those drives. In other words, content\/needs theories give importance to the nature of needs and what motivates people (Mullins, 2002; 426).<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Content-need theories generally include Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory, Alderfer's ERG Theory, Herzberg's Two-factor Theory, Murray and McClelland's Learned Motives Theory.<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

According to process theories, needs are only one of the factors that drive the individual to behavior (Ko\u00e7el, 2001; 517 in Stoner, 1978; 406). Process theories do not focus on the content, that is, the energy-related part of the phenomenon of motivation, and accept them as existing (T\u0131nar, 1988; 9). In addition, needs are highly individualized and may change over time for each person. Therefore, process theories focus more strongly on events that affect the strength of these motives, and focus on mental processes that transform a motive into a specific behavior pattern (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2002; 203). Process theories try to describe the relationship between dynamic variables that create motivation. These theories are more concerned with how behavior is initiated, directed, and sustained. Process theories give importance to the real motivation process (Mullins, 2002; 426).<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Process theories generally include Vroom and Porter-Lawler's Prospect Theories, Adams' Equivalence Theory, Locke's Goal Setting Theory, Heider and Kelley's Causality Attribution\/Attribution Theory.<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

While content theories have some procedural tendencies, process theories may also include some contextual dimensions. However, in order to reach a specific formulation about motivation, it is necessary to make a distinction between need and process (Tosi et al., 1990; 269). As a result, need and process theories are complementary rather than contradictory (Johns & Saks, 2001; 137).<\/strong><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tayfun Topalo\u011flu<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

All Posts by the Author<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. Kapsam Kuramlar\u0131<\/strong><\/h3>\n
1.1. Murray's Learned Needs Theory (Manifest Needs Theory)<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
1.2. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
1.3. Alderfer's ERG (Existence-Relatedness-Growth) Theory<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
1.4. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
1.5. McClelland's Theory of Needs<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
1.6. Comparison of Scope Theories<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

2. S\u00fcre\u00e7 Kuramlar\u0131<\/strong><\/h3>\n

2.1.Beklenti Kuram\u0131 (Expectancy Theory)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n2.2.Adams\u2019\u0131n \u00d6d\u00fcl Adaleti ve E\u015fitli\u011fi Kuram\u0131 (Equity Theory)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n2.3.Locke\u2019un Ama\u00e7 Saptama Kuram\u0131 (Goal Setting Theory)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n2.4.Ko\u015fullanma Kuram\u0131 (Reinforcement Theory)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n2.5.Nedensellik Y\u00fckleme\/Atfetme Kuram\u0131 (Attribution Theory)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n– Heider\u2019in Nedensellik Y\u00fckleme Kuram\u0131<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n– Nedensellik Y\u00fckleme S\u00fcreci<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n– Weiner\u2019in Nedensellik Ba\u015far\u0131 Kuram\u0131<\/a><\/strong><\/span>
\n– Ba\u015far\u0131 G\u00fcd\u00fcs\u00fc ve Nedensellik Y\u00fckleme \u0130li\u015fkisi<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

References<\/a><\/p>\n

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n