Incentive theory of motivation - Research Paper Example

?Incentive Theory of Motivation Introduction The incentive theory of motivation proposes that “behavior is guided by the lure of rewards and the threat of punishment” (Bernstein, 2011, p. 302). Within this motivational premise, expectations of the importance of various rewards and the probability of attaining them are influenced by cognitive factors (Bernstein, 2011). This paper elucidates the incentive theory of motivation, its historical evolution, tenets, scopes, and the main interventions which have been devised based on the theory. Historical Development From the psychological viewpoint, individuals generally feel more motivated the more they value an outcome and the more they expect its achievement. Research on expectancy-value approaches was found to be distinct from the psychodynamic and functional views of motivation from the work of Boring in 1950 to that of Werner three and a half decades later (as cited in Fiske, 2008). The expectancy-value approach in motivation came about largely from research settings where organisms (i.e, either rodents or humans) are offered straightforward incentives and “learn to control their outcomes by understanding the contingencies of probabilities and values” (Fiske, 2008, p. 9). Tolman enunciated purposive behaviorism in 1932, conceptualizing incentive as the quality and quantity of a reward. Grounded on a plethora of research by McDougall, Spence, Miller, and Zajone from 1946 to 1965, the intervening variables, specifically the association between stimulus and response, the expectancy of value as an explanation for behavior recognized the role of cognition. Meanwhile, results from experiments undertaken by Hull in 1943 in accordance with Pavlov’s conditioned reflex and Thorndike’s rewarded stimulus-response which encourages repetition revealed that behavior is a result of drive and habit. Taken in the sense of Hull’s revelations, drive is a need which strengthens behavior, whereas, habit is learning from previous experience which directs behavior. Other researchers contributed to the pool of knowledge on incentives as a motivation for behavior from 1951 to 1966, such as Lewin, Rotter, and Weiner, work on achievement motivation helped bridged the gap between personality and social psychology (Fiske, 2008). The incentive theory of motivation finds application in the criminal justice system, as embodied in the one or two elements of the classical criminological theory. From Hanser (2010)’s restatement of the classical theory of criminology, fear of punishment control’s an individual’s choice of criminal solutions, and that, the harsher the punishment, better control is made of criminal behavior. The cognitive influence is, therefore, apparent from the statement that “offenders can (and do) learn from their transgressions through a variety of reinforcement and punishment schedules that institutional and community-based corrections may provide” (Hanser, 2011, p. 17). The reinforcement in the preceding statement is, in effect, an incentive. The criminal justice system apparently saw the applicability of the incentive theory of motivation as early as the eighteenth century when the Pennsylvania reform law of 1786 considered pardon as a means to encourage offenders to repent and undergo reformation. From this viewpoint, early penal reformers take the possibility of pardon as an incentive to rehabilitate (Kann, 2005). From the historical context of criminology, punishment for crime had to be rational such that a match between the offense committed and the punishment inflicted is attained. Thus, more serious crimes are meted with more severe punishment. Norrie (2006) argued that punishment need only be as harsh as the gravity of the crime committed because a lesser or harsher punishment can will provide no incentive for the offender to reform or commit lesser crimes. The Pennsylvania Prison Society (1862) quoting correctional inspectors maintained that “the diminution of sentence and the restoration of all citizenship are powerful incentives to good behavior” (p. 60). However, during such time, the same inspectors were not yet very sure of the advantages of incentives on prison behavior and were not able to strongly recommend the incentive reforms. In 1995, the national framework for incentives and earned privileges was announced classifying three levels of incentives or earnable privileges, such as, a little cash, extra visits, enhanced earning schemes, and community visits. From an account by James, Bottomley, Liebling, and Clare (1997), an incentives scheme was applied in a specific correction facility to reward good behavior or a positive contribution to the institution. The mere fact that the aforementioned incentives continue up to the present time provides good support to the applicability of the incentive theory of motivation in the criminal justice system. Tenets In contrast to other motivational theories which indicate that internal processes influence people to behave in certain ways, the incentive theory of motivation argued that external stimuli plays a crucial role in motivating human behavior by either encouraging or dissuading people from doing certain acts. In particular, external stimuli influence people to seek and acquire positive incentives and to avoid and reject negative incentives. Moreover, how a person behaves differently from another person can be attributed to the type of incentive present and how the person values a particular incentive at a specific moment in time. If a person is aware that a certain behavior or act will produce an outcome that will be beneficial or places him / her at an advantageous position, the person will engage in such behavior or act. Inversely, if a person is also aware that certain acts or behavior will cause harm and hinder the achievement of a goal, the person will be more likely to refrain from performing such acts or displaying a certain behavior (Bernstein, Penner, Clarke-Stewart & Roy, 2011). Incentives serve as “pull” factors which influence a person towards committing a certain act or behavior. How strong an incentive “pulls” an individual is determined by personal learning, expectations, and culture (Nevid, 2011). However, the value being placed by a person on certain incentives may be influenced by psychological, cognitive, and social factors. In addition, the level of motivation a person has depends on the concept of wants (attraction to incentive) and likes (pleasure derived from stimulus). Observations on human and animal behavior indicate dominancy of wants over likes, as well as the direct relationship between wanting and level of deprivation (Bernstein, Penner, Clarke-Stewart & Roy, 2011). In the case of criminal behavior, the incentive theory of motivation also seek to provide an explanation to behaviors that run contrary to social norms such as drug abuse (Eagleman, Correro & Singh, 2010) and corruption (Lambsdorff, 2010; Olken & Pande, 2011). Scope and Problem Areas of the Incentive Theory of Motivation The incentive theory of motivation applies to the study of behaviors that run contrary to social norms. One example is the problem of drug abuse which has plagued human society since ancient times. Today, it is estimated that seven out of ten jail inmates have become drug abusers or dependents prior to their incarceration. In addition, almost four out of ten inmates were under the influence of drugs while committing a crime (Eagleman, Correro & Singh, 2010). The incentive theory seeks to explain the mechanism behind the repeated attempts of offenders to gain access to prohibited drugs despite various interventions introduced by the government. Since the incentive theory focuses on external “pull” factors which influence a person to commit an act, the same concept applies to mechanisms which encourage offenders to go back to their addiction when given the opportunity. This phenomenon occurs despite obvious social disapproval of drug abuse and dependency (Eagleman, Correro & Singh, 2010). The application of incentive theory in terms of drug abuse can be understood better in the incentive-sensitization theory of drug addiction. When combined with the sensitization effects of drugs to the mesolimbic area of the brain which creates pathological incentive motivation for drugs, external “pull” factors  reinforce this wanting behavior which eventually leads to addiction (Robinson & Berridge, 2008). Another problem area that the incentive theory seeks to address is the centuries-old issue of corruption, specifically the act of bribery. Incentive theory involves the role of external stimulus in encouraging certain human behavior. In terms of bribery, persons who commit the act perceive benefits for doing so, satisfying the “wanting” part. Meanwhile, the feeling of satisfaction or pleasure after receiving bribe money or other things of value satisfies the “liking” part (Olken & Pande, 2011). In an environment where bribery is prevalent, knowledge of such activities further reinforces the practice. However, most attempts to counter bribery based on incentive theory concepts fail since incentives alone cannot overcome bribery based in economic terms. A more effective approach is to focus on group behavior which can influence the very environment in which bribery thrives (Lambsdorff, 2010). Main Intervention Strategies One of the main intervention strategies which adapted the incentive theory of motivation is motivational enhancement therapy (MET). The National Institute on Drug Abuse recognizes MET as a recommended treatment scheme for substance abuse within the criminal justice system. MET uses the key principles of the incentive theory of motivation and motivational interviewing to encourage a patient to draw upon his/her own inner strength to effect a behavioral change. MET is most effective in the criminal justice system because “positive reinforcement in the form of incentives may be more motivating than the threat of punishment” (Weinman, 2011, p. 95). The drug court treatment model used in diversion and treatment programs are particularly effective according to professionals which apply the model in their functional spheres of intervention. The model relies on the incentive theory of motivation. Based on the experience of professional therapists, “motivation in treatment is substantially improved by providing the incentive to avoid incarceration” (McKenna & Smith, 1998, p. 306). The Good Lives Model was developed as a response to criminal offenses caused by illegal acquisition of goods. Based on the incentive theory of motivation, this intervention seeks to reduce offenses by improving the availability of goods through pro-social methods and by breaking barriers and obstacles which hinder access to goods in the first place. One feature of the intervention involves offering constructive work for individuals, allowing them to acquire goods without breaking the law (Robinson, 2011). References Bernstein, D. A. (2011). Essentials of psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Cengage Learning. Bernstein, D., Penner, L. A., Clarke-Stewart, A. & Roy, E. J. (2011). Psychology. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Eagleman, D. M., Correro, M. A. & Singh, J. (2011). Neuroscience: Why neuroscience matters to rational drug policy. Minnesota Journal of Law, 11(1), 7-26. Fiske, S. T. (2008). Core social motivations: Views from the couch, consciousness, classroom, computers, and collectives. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hanser, R. D. (2010). Community corrections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. James, A. L., Bottomley, A. K., Liebling, A. & Clare, E. (1997). Privatizing prisons: Rhetoric and reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kann, M. E. (2005). Punishment, prisons, and patriarchy: Liberty and power in the early American republic. New York: New York University Press. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2010). The organization of anticorruption: Getting incentives right. In M. Kreutner (Ed.), Practice Meets Science: Contemporary Anti-Corruption Dialogue IACSS 2009 (67-90). Vienna, AUT: Manzsche Verlag- und Universitatsbuchhandlung. McKenna, B. & Smith, M. (1998). A harm reduction approach to the depenalization of drug crime via community based outpatient treatment. In J. Boros, I. Munnich & M. Szegedi (Eds.), Psychology and criminal justice: International review of theory and practice (pp. 301-309). Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter. Nevid, J. S. (2011). Essentials of psychology: Concepts and applications. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Norrie, A. (2006). Crime, reason, and history: A critical introduction to criminal law (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Olken, B. A. & Pande, R. (2011). Corruption in developing countries: NBER Working Papers 17398. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Pennsylvania Prison Society (Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons). (1862). The journal of prison discipline and philanthropy. Philadelphia, PA: Henry B. Ashmead. Robinson, T. E. & Berridge, K. C. (2008). The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: Some current issues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 3137-3146. Robinson, A. (2011). Foundations for offender management: Theory, law, and policy for contemporary practice. Portland, OR: The Policy Press. Simon, F. H. (2005). Prisoner’s work and vocational training. New York, NY: Routledge. Weinman, B. (2011). A historical perspective on offender drug abuse treatment. In C. Leuefeld, T. P. Gullotta & J. Gregrich (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based substance abuse treatment in criminal justice settings (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. Read More