The second part of our lecture delved more into our social psychological needs. As we grow older, both physically and in life experience we begin to develop a need for achievement (good grades to get into university, a good career) affiliation & intimacy (friends and intimate relationships) and power (status and money). As previously mentioned, these preferences develop due to unique life experience and development & via our social connections. As individuals our needs in these particular areas will vary (some people may value power more than they do friends!).
Before getting more in-depth about the origins of social needs we first examined the Quasi-Needs. Quasi needs differ from social needs as they are situational based. That is, they create tense energy in order to engage in behaviour which will reduce such tension. For example, you have been preparing dinner, slicing up carrots and you slip slightly, glancing the knife over your finger. It’s bleeding a little, but nothing to cry about, however, it stings slightly and you don’t want it to get infected so a quasi-need now arises. You feel the need to put antibacterial cream and a bandage on and once you have the need is now gone. Clearly, this is not a full blow need as such, that is, it is not critical for psychological growth and well-being. Although, if it were to get infected it may indeed have an effect on psychological well-being!
Social Needs differ as they are gained through experience, socialising and development (Reeve, 2009). Basically, once acquired, a social need expresses itself as emotional and behavioural potentials that may activate due to need relevant incentives. So social needs are essentially reactive in nature, that is, they lie dormant until a situation brings them within the sphere of our emotions and behaviour. For example, a date or meeting with someone you like is an intimacy incentive and if you have a need for intimacy (affiliation) you will behave in a way which will satisfy this need. This is known as behavioural approach, however, if the idea of a date stirs up emotions of anxiety (perhaps a past date led to rejection) and you choose to avoid it, this is known as behavioural avoidance.
The need for achievement is the desire to do something well relative to a standard of excellence (Neill, 2010; Reeve, 2009). A standard of excellence is any change to a person’s sense of competence that ends with an objective outcome of success vs failure, win vs loss or right vs wrong (Reeve, 2009). It is a broad term that basically encompasses competition with: a specific task (a puzzle or video game), the self (setting a new personal best lap time at the pool) and others (beating a swimming rival).
It is from here that we can examine and understand the behavioural differences in high need achievers as compared to low need achievers. Essentially, when we approach a challenge each of us will approach it a different way. We all differ in our choices (what we choose to approach), latency, effort (high/low), persistence (high/low) and our willingness in taking responsibility for both success and failure (Reeve, 2009). If I am a high need achiever (am I??) I will choose moderate to hard or simply hard tasks alone, quickly tackling what I need to get done instead of procrastinating, put in great effort and perform better (due to being energised with pride), persist in the face of adversity and even through failure, and take personal responsibility for failure rather than seeking out help.
Socially this is achieved through parents allowing us independence, allowing us to have high aspirations while still remaining realistic about them, fostering the value of achievement and providing an environment which allows for this to occur (stimulating books and travelling). For example, I happened to have the experience of spending pre schooling age time on the ANU campus.
Cognitively if we have perceptions of high ability it can facilitate better performance and persistence. If we are driven to master something (rather than allowing ourselves to feel helpless) we more consistently than not, see failure as a temporary set-back and hence increase our efforts to learn and achieve. Hence this also displays that we value achievement in that area (psychology for example) as we are persistent in our efforts for success. Additionally, if we are able to show an optimistic state of mind, when we DO achieve success then negative emotions are less likely to arise.
Developmentally the above develops throughout our lifetime. Essentially, we are not inherently pride prone or shame prone when approaching excellence, it is something that we learn throughout our development.
Following this, we examined the Atkinson models. Which include, the tendency to approach success (Ts) and the tendency to avoid failure (Taf). Essentially, achievement motivation swings between, the tendency to feel the excitement of success but also the tendency to avoid failure too. At first I personally did not like how this progressed. Generally I approach the use of mathematics to explain (not quantify) human behaviour with scepticism. However, in this instance I feel that this formula is quite interesting doesn’t work too badly. Atkinson felt that behaviour depended not only on the need for achievement but also the probability and incentive value of success. The formula for the tendency to approach success is abbreviated using the following:
Ta = Ms x Ps x Is
Ta (Tendency to achieve) = Ms (motive to succeed) x Ps (probability of success) x Is (incentive value of success). To work out the Is value we use the following formula (1- Ps).
Additionally, as much as we are motivated to achieve success, we can also be equally motivate to avoid failure. The formula used to calculate this is as follows:
Taf = Maf x Pf x If
Maf (motivation to avoid failure) x Pf (probability of failure) x If (negative incentive value for failure). Pf is calculated using (1 – Ps) and If is calculated usinf (1 – Pf). The text book for this unit, Understanding motivation and emotion 5th Ed (Reeve, 2009) provides in-depth examples.
Now we were presented with the dynamics-of-action model of achievement. Basically, when we are striving for achievement our behaviour is largely governed by three factors (Reeve, 2009).
1. Instigation, this causes us to engage an environmental stimulus which has been associated with a past reward. I’m going to start my essay and ask (insert name) to help me, as I got a higher mark when they proof read it, as compared to when they didn’t. In the above formula this is represented as Ts.
2. Inhibition, causes a rise in avoidance based behaviour. I cannot cope with presentation in front of my tutorial group, they may ridicule me! Clearly this is associated with a fear of failure and negative evaluation. This is represented in the formula as Taf.
3. Consummation, essentially the performance of an activity will bring about it cessation. When running in a marathon, one will eventually reach the finish line. Moreover, it’s from this fact that we can understand how behaviour is dynamic and does change over time. How so? When you first start training for the marathon, your performance may not be amazing at first, however, after sixteen weeks of training this should be a different story.
So what conditions specifically satisfy achievement? I have come to see the value in three specific areas, moderately difficult tasks, competition and entrepreneurship. Essentially, moderately difficult tasks allow us a chance to test our competence and determine our level of ability, hence allowing us to experience success and achievement. Competition will allow us grounds for which to test our abilities and evaluation. However, if we are low-need achievers it can provoke feelings of anxiety, a sense of negative evaluation and hence we may start to avoid competition for that reason! Finally, those who have a high need for achievement, have the qualities of entrepreneurs. How is that so? This is because entrepreneurs have a high need for achievement, can take risks and assume responsibility for their mistakes.
What really struck a personal chord with me about this topic was the difference between those who have a desire to perform well and those who seek out mastery of their goals. This appeals to me, as in the martial arts many people can learn to perform many techniques, but in the real world, the application is very different and successful application would depend more on the pursuit of mastery instead! More specifically, it is mastery of the self. At first this may seem like a somewhat hard line to draw… What is wrong with pursuing high performance? Well if someone who has a performance goal strives to: prove competence, high ability, outperform others and succeed with little -effort, while someone with mastery goals strives to: develop competence, make progress, improve the self, overcome difficulty with persistence and effort (Neill, 2010). But wait… a performance goal doesn’t seem so bad does it? Well… consider… performance goals create negative and unproductive feelings and behaviours. Essentially, one who has a performance goal is all about competitively ‘out’-performing others, while someone with a mastery goal is more focused on learning and developing one’s self without fierce focus on outdoing others. Essentially, one who strives for mastery will work harder, persist for longer and as a result…. End up performing better in the long run!
These also tie into what we came to know as the Implicit Theories. There were two different schools of thought on these theories. Either you have a set personality and intelligence or you don’t. For example, those who believe personality is flexible and that challenging tasks will require a high level of effort and incremental theorists (Reeve, 2009). While those who believe personality is fixed and that putting in a high level of effort equals a low ability are entity theorists. Personally, I cannot see how personality or intelligence is fixed. If allowed the opportunity for further education intelligence can increase and furthermore, if someone is putting in a lot of effort into a difficult task, it’s quite obvious they are determined to learn and that learning has a deeper personal meaning for them.
This week’s lecture finished examining affiliation and intimacy and finally with power. On the topic of affiliation and intimacy I learnt these needs were not as simple as I first thought. Essentially, if one has an affiliation need that this is more motivated out of loneliness and social isolation. Hence it would be better thought of as a deficiency. Essentially, one who has a high need for affiliation is seeking social acceptance, approval and reassurance (Neill, 2010). Our text book states that when the need is met it is more of a sense of relief rather than joy that a relationship has been established (Reeve, 2009). It feels to me that an affiliation based relationship is a little empty, based on relieving one’s anxieties of loneliness and sense of being accepted rather than on a deeper meaningful connection. Essentially in that case, intimacy based relationships come across to me as deeper and more oriented on closeness and connection with others. As our text book puts it, intimacy expresses itself as a growth oriented motive and is satisfied through achieving closeness in a relationship (Reeve, 2009). This also ties in with those who are power seeking individuals. Those who are seeking power, over their physical and social world have needs which focus around domination, reputation and status. A diagram in our lecture slides outlines the framework for those high in a need for power and hence leadership (Neill, 2010).
So I can see that those who have a leadership motivation, hence a motivation for power tend to want to exercise influence or control over others and they do not have a high need for affiliation. Essentially, they do not care if they are liked or not and they seem to prefer to socialise with those who they can lead. It seems to me that those very high in the need for affiliation will be more concerned with performing in order to satisfy others in order to be accepted, hence they lack the motivational pattern to be leaders, and they are led by those in positions of power. Furthermore those in positions of power will have a high level of self-control (Reeve, 2009). Essentially, having a high level of self-control would suggest that one would be more task focused/oriented and as a result would be more productive. As an example, think of an army drill sergeant, they have a high need for power (in control), a low need for affiliation (couldn’t care less if they are disliked) and they have a high level of self-control (they get the job DONE!).
As always, your comments and feedback would be appreciated. If there is something I have missed or not covered well enough, let’s make up for it with a healthy discussion in the comments section of this blog.
References
Neill, J. (2010). [Social Needs Lecture]. Lecture presented at the University of Canberra, ACT. [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/
Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion. USA: Wiley.
