Who We Are

I Scooped Wall Street Journal in PT

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:15:12 +0000

Week before last, I posted a satirical piece titled "Fed bailout of Michigan Football." In that piece, I specifically suggested a merger of the University of Michigan football program with the University of Notre Dame's football team. I called the merged team, "Irishwolves". I said the Irishwolves would split their games among Ann Arbor, South Bend, and Washington.

In today's Wall Street Journal (23 November 2009), Jason Gay, wrote a piece called "Let's Fix Michigan and Notre Dame." He proposed to merge the two football teams. He suggested that the merged team should be called the "Irish Wolverines." He suggested the merged team could split their games between Ann Arbor and South Bend.

Although Mr. Gay did not cite me or credit me with the idea, the conclusion is inescapable. Readers interested in novel solutions to today's complex issues can read about them first in the blogs of "Psychology Today." You don't even have to pay for access to PT like you do at wsj.com.

The Myths of Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:22:29 +0000

What happens when a person is offered an incentive to do something the individual would have done anyway, without incentive? Back in 1975 Edward Deci, Mark Lepper, and their colleagues proposed that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. In contrast, Len Sushinsky and I argued that the effects of rewards depend on how you use them. If you reward a person for just spending time in an activity, the person will become bored with the activity. If you reward a person for learning a new skill, however, the person is likely to show greater interest in the activity. We also asserted the significance of the symbolic effects of the reward. When reward symbolizes success, for example, intrinsic interest should be enhanced. Back in 1975 we were especially critical of the social psychology experiments that used single trial rewards because novel rewards can be distracting.

That was 35 years ago. In the interim many studies were conducted on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. To prove that rewards undermine intrinsic interest, researchers needed to demonstrate each of the following: construct validity; reliable measures; experimental controls; and favorable experimental results. Let's see what happened.

I believe that intrinsic - extrinsic motivation is an invalid distinction. I would argue that intrinsic-extrinsic motivation is a modern version of mind-body dualism, such that intrinsic motives (e.g., curiosity, self-determination) are those of the mind, while extrinsic motives (e.g., hunger, sex) are those of the body. In any event, I do not think that motives can be divided into just two types. On the contrary, I think there are 16 intrinsic motives (or "needs") and no extrinsic motives. I have no idea how to even state undermining theory when it is appreciated that any of 16 intrinsic needs can motivate interest in an activity, and any of 16 needs can motivate interest in a reward.

I question the reliability of behavioral measures of intrinsic interest. What activities a child chooses while running around a nursery school may vary from day to day for no particular reason. In any event, I do not recall a study demonstrating the test-retest reliability of the behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation. I believe that measures of self-reported interest are reliable, so if I were to review the literature, I would focus only on the results with self report measures.

Further, I think certain interpretations of the behavior measure have led to circularity and self-fulfilling prophecy. Suppose we offer a boy a prize for making a good drawing; the boy draws and gets the prize; and now we observe the boy to see if he still draws on his own. If the boy draws little after having earned the prize, undermining theorists would interpret this as evidence of decreased intrinsic motivation. However, if the boy draws often after having earned the prize, undermining theorists would not interpret this as evidence of increased intrinsic motivation. That is, the boy drawing less supports undermining theory, but the boy drawing more doesn't contradict it. When the boy draws more, undermining theorists assume that the child was looking for a reward and, thus, was extrinsically motivated. When the boy draws less, undermining theorists assume that the child could not have been looking for an incentive and, thus, was intrinsically motivated. This "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking is circular; it biased the publication process by mis-identifying disconfirming studies as invalid. Many studies that did not support undermining theory were never published because of this faulty logic applied in the peer review process.

The undermining studies did not control for the known negative effects of reward. Especially when rewards are novel -- nearly all of the undermining studies used only one trial of reward -- they can be distracting, arouse performance anxiety, or even cause doubt that the experimenter will actually give the reward as promised.

Even after setting aside the above issues, meta-reviewers hoping to demonstrate undermining theory still needed to exclude some unfavorable studies to do so. The mentality of "let's include this study in the meta-review, but not that study" went to what I would regard as extremes. Studies that contradicted undermining theory -- such as a study I published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1975 -- were not counted in meta-reviews, while the 1977 study by Smith and Pittman was included as supporting undermining even though this study gave multiple trials of a reward that symbolized failure.

Personally, I object to intrinsic-extrinsic motivation because it offers "one size fits all" solutions for educating children and motivating adults. I believe, for example, that some children thrive with cooperative learning, others thrive with competitive learning situations, but intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory wants all children to grow up with cooperative learning. In the name of self-determination, undermining theory imposes its values on others believing it is for their own good. I think undermining theory could be misused to teach children who are competitive by nature that something is wrong with them for enjoying competition.

Intrinsic-extrinsic motivation has become a dead end. I have seen teachers mope around saying they can't do anything to help students because "the intrinsic motivation has been beaten out of them." Our schools do not need a theory that can function as an excuse for inaction.

Although I disagree with undermining theory, I commend the related social psychological discussion on self-determination. I think the discussion has served to promote policies that helped people with disabilities. I think intrinsic motivation is at its best when used to promote freedom, including the freedom to pursue material rewards. I think undermining theory is at its worst when it implies support for freedom except when people choose materialism, capitalism, or values different from those of undermining theorists.

Hedonism (Sensuality) Doesn't Exist

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:58:07 +0000

Some psychologists have talked about pleasure seeking or hedonism as a personality trait. I believe, however, that the construct of 'pleasure seeking' is invalid. Nobody seeks sensual pleasure. Here's why.

The phenomenon of satiation disproves the construct of hedonism (sensuality). Suppose, for example, that a theorist defined sensuality to include pleasure from eating and sex. Such a construct implies that the need for eating can be satiated by sexual activity and vice versa. Since this is obviously invalid, the construct of sensuality is invalid.

When a person seeks sensual pleasures, he or she is motivated by separate and totally unrelated needs for each pleasure (sex, eating, physical activity, and so on). The joint occurrences of the motives is co-incidental and not a manifestation of a common motive or need.

A general issue with personality theory is that many constructs -- like pleasure seeking -- are invalid because they refer to common consequences of unrelated antecedents. Theorists made the mistake known as "error of consequence" -- they assume that if X is a consequence of Y, X was the goal. Since pleasure is the consequence of both eating and sex, psychologists have invented the construct of "pleasure seeking." The goal of eating, though, is satiation of hunger, not pleasure; the goal of sex is orgasm, not pleasure.

Just because an experience (pleasure, happiness) is a consequence of a motive does not mean that pleasure was the motive or goal. I smile when I am happy, but I do not seek happiness in order to smile. The logical error of consequence has been pointed out many times even in antiquity, yet it is the basis for a number of personality constructs.

(Note to those following my blog: The 16 needs do not include a need for hedonism, or pleasure seeking, but they do include pain avoidance [which is closely connected to anxiety avoidance]. Because the 16 needs identify antecedent variables, not consequences, they may excel at predicting behavior in natural environments, something that is very difficult to do.)

Fed Bail Out of Michigan Football

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:08:59 +0000

Although the University of Michigan Wolverine football team is in last place in the Big Ten, fans should stop worrying. Athletic Director Bill Martin has placed a call to the White House and arranged for a bailout. Here are the details:

1. With a zero percent loan from the Federal Reserve, The University of Michigan will buy the University of Notre Dame's football team for $8 billion. The combined team will be known as the "Irishwolves" and will split home games among Ann Arbor, South Bend, and Washington, D.C.

2. Using the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARF), the U.S. Treasury will buy the contracts for Coach Rodriguez and Coach Charlie Weis. They will become football czars in the White House. Coach Weis will issue a new federal plan to do over the NFL, and coach Rod will issue a new federal plan to make over college football. Presdient Obama says he will not support either plan if it costs more than one trillion over the next 12 years. Replublican leaders already have said they would not support the new plans.

3. Kenneth Feinberg, Special Paymaster for President Obama, has determined that the new Irishwolve coaches cannot earn more than $37,500 annually.

4. High school players who accept UM football scholarships will earn a $6,000 tax credit.

5. Nancy Pelosi will enroll the UM Athletic Department in the U.S. government's new health insurance plan. The catch: Female athletes must promise not to seek any abortions. UM's athletes will be required to get sick not less than two times a year but not more than five. Any athlete failing to meet this requirement will face fines.

6. Fox News will be barred from reporting the results of all games played by the Irishwolves.

Intrinsic Motivation is Multifaceted

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:36:02 +0000

I have challenged the global ideas of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. I believe there are 16 intrinsic motives or needs, and no extrinsic motives. Since nothing is common to all 16 needs, intrinsic motivation is fundamentally multifaceted. All psychologically important motives reduce to some combination of the 16 intrinsic human needs.

The 16 human needs have been applied to sports, producing a new sports psychology. We are replacing global ideas about motivation with specific assessments of what intrinsically motivates each individual athlete. We have learned that some college athletes participate in sports with a "win-at-all-cost" attitude; some aim for excellence; some just like to exercise; some like the status; some want to make friends; some seek approval of others; and many embrace a unique combination of these motives.

Our approach cherishes the individuality of each athlete. We train coaches and athletic consultants to help athletes learn who they are; what their deepest needs are; how to make use of those needs; and how to anticipate and manage their athletic tendencies. If an athlete has a "win-at-all-cost" attitude, I have written that this is a normal value and not an indicator of personality disorder as some psychologists think. If an athlete wants to participate in sports to make friends, I believe the sports psychologist should accept that goal as valid for that individual. I make no value judgments; I do not say that a mix of motives is superior to being a Johnny or Jane one motive. My message is "who you are," not "who I want you to be."

In a preliminary evaluation of our model, we administered standardized psychological assessments of 16 human needs to athletes from NCAA Division I and Division III colleges and universities. We followed up standardized assessment with one-on-one confidential interviews with each individual athlete. We also held separate interviews with the coaches. In Division III, some athletes had a "win-at-all-cost" attitude, but others were participating for the social experience. The same was true in Division I, but overall, there was a huge difference in the mix of motives between the two divisions. We had dozens of Division III athletes flatly state they played for the social experience and didn't care about the score. We had no Division I athlete make similar statements. We were encouraged that our standardized assessment had validly projected the 16 human needs into athletics. Subsequently, an athlete working with this approach won an Olympic Gold medal in Beijing, and a team working with our motivation system won world championship rings in handball before an international television audience estimated at 20 million people.

I posted the story on my blog, "Who We Are," and I would like to thank Dr. John Tauer for his interest in my work. I am surprised, though, that he reacted as if I had slighted Division III by reporting what scores of Division III athletes directly told me, confirmed by both standardized assessment and by their coaches. To the extent to which Dr. Tauer is implying that participating in sports just to make friends is an insult - he seems to personally value multiple motives -- I would like to disagree. I think everyone who participates should be proud regardless of the diversity of their motives.

Our work is arguably the first scientifically valid account of human needs. We have learned how not to lump together motivational apples and oranges. Dr. Tauer, for example, confuses valuation of excellence with valuation of winning. Achievers place an above-average value on hard work, but may or may not place an above-average value on winning. Highly competitive people value winning at all cost, but may or may not place an above-average value on hard work. Achievement falls under a need for power or will and is closely linked to leadership, whereas competition motivation falls under a basic desire for vengeance and is closely linked with aggressiveness.

Dr. Tauer cites his personal observations of some Division III football players who left their heart on the field as evidence that there is no general difference in what motivates Division I versus Division III athletes. I salute those players, but I don't think that Dr. Tauer's unscientific observations say much about Division III versus Division I athletes in general. After all, there are junior high school athletes who play their hearts out, but that hardly means that junior high athletics has the same "win-at-all-cost" attitude we see at Division I schools like Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, and so on. I advocate objective, scientifically valid, standardized assessments of what motivates an individual athlete followed by confidential structured interviews.

As a blogger, I am required to invent "a teaser line," which is the media equivalent of "Stay tuned because you won't believe the story coming up." It never occurred to me that anyone would interpret the teaser line as exaggerated since that is its purpose. The teaser line I used was that "NCAA Division I athletes aim to win. Division III to make friends." (The teaser line is limited to a maximum ten words so qualifications aren't always possible.) I hadn't thought much about my teaser line previously, but now that I have, I suspect that my teaser line is generally valid but with many individual exceptions. Division I athletic programs have huge budgets and must win or they could lose millions of dollars; Division III athletic budgets are much smaller. I would be amazed if athletes didn't self-select: An athlete who does not place a high value on winning wouldn't last long at a school like Ohio State, could easily figure that out, and so would think twice about coming here to play sports. No doubt many Division III athletes place a very high value on winning, but given self-selection there should be a large average difference, not withstanding Dr. Tauer's heart tugging anecdotes.

Anyone interested in learning more about the 16 human needs is invited to attend our nonprofit conference next September at Franklin College in Indiana. We haven't set the program yet, but world class athletic coaches are expected to present. (See www.motivationscience.org).

Human Needs and Intellectual Disabilities

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:45:00 +0000

Working with children with intellectual disabilities (ID), Edward Zigler and his colleagues studied five motives in detail: dependency, fear of strangers, expectancy of success, outerdirectedness, and competence motivation (Zigler, Bennet-Givens, & Hodapp 1999). This work encouraged attention to the needs of the "whole person" at a time when the ID field of was narrowly focused on the trait of sub-average intelligence. Zigler was an extraordinarily productive researcher and an effective advocate for the developmental model of research. His effort to broaden how we think about intellectual disabilities was influential.

For more than a decade my colleagues and I have been working to revive interest in theories of human needs. During that time, we empirically derived 16 such needs and presented scientific evidence of their reliability and validity. Everybody embraces all 16 needs, although we prioritize them differently. These priorities are what make us individuals.

Recently, we applied 12 human needs to a number of practical activities relevant to adolescents and adults with ID. We constructed two psychometric instruments, called the "Reiss Profile-MR/DD" and the newer "Reiss Profile of Human Needs." The 12 human needs applicable to ID are called need for acceptance, need for attention, need to eat, need to help others, need for independence, need to learn, need for order, need for physical activity, need for romance, need for social contact, need for tranquility, and need for vengeance. The main applications of this work are as follows.

1. Analysis of human needs make it possible to replace the language of disability (e.g., "person with ID") with the language of individuality (e.g., "friendly person"). We have new and powerful methods for training caregivers to recognize the human qualities of each individual they serve and to stop thinking of each person generically in terms of categories of disabilities.

2. The results of our psychometric assessments of human needs include numerous suggestions for improving quality of life and enhancing happiness for each individual evaluated. Needs analysis provides an essential supplement to what is called "person centered planning." As currently practiced, person centered planning is biased significantly because caregivers and others confuse their personal values for values held by the individual consumer with ID. Psychometric assessments of human needs based on multiple raters minimize the bias in person-centered and self-determination assessments.

3. Because people are happy when their needs are met, but unhappy when their needs are frustrated, analysis of a person's needs can show how to anticipate what might frustrate the individual and, thus, possibly trigger episodes of challenging behavior. By more completely addressing each individual's needs, some episodes of challenging behavior might be avoided. Thus, analysis of human needs represents a rare effort to study new ways of prevention of violence and challenging behavior in the ID population.

The Athletic Personality

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:50:42 +0000

Some authorities have suggested that there is no athletic personality, but they may be mistaken. In terms of the 16 human needs, we find a definite personality pattern characteristic of athletes.

On average athletes score more than a full standard deviation above the norm in terms of intrinsic valuation of physical activity. This is not surprising; what is surprising is that every athlete doesn't have a "high" need for physical activity. A few athletes who voluntarily participate in sports have below average intrinsic valuation of physical activity.

Athletes also are family oriented. Nearly every team we have evaluated on both sides of the pond had an above-average valuation of family life.

Athletes tend to be expedient. On average, they are significantly less likely to value character than is the average individual.

(Based on the assessment of more than 1,200 athletes on a cross cultural basis.)

A New Sports Psychology

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:35:21 +0000

Peter Boltersdorf, a sports and business consultant in Germany, applied the 16 human needs to competitive athletics. Peter's first consult was with the minor league professional soccer team in Mainz, which was struggling in mid-season, largely because of poor performance from a star player. Peter determined that the player had a "high need for acceptance" and further noticed that the Mainz coach constantly berated the player during games, yelling, "Kick it right! Kick it right!"

Since a player with a high need for acceptance will only be discouraged by criticism, Peter advised the coach not to yell at the player while a game was in progress. Instead, the coach should provide calm, constructive criticism after the game. The player's performance improved dramatically and the team went on to win a division title and move up to a higher league.

When Peter told me of his consult, I gained new insights into how to apply the 16 human needs to sports. By relating each of the human needs to specific athletic tendencies, I could see that a player with a low need for honor, for example, might have a tendency to commit penalties. A player with a high need for status might perform best against a high status opponent.

In total, I deduced scores of sports-specific implications from my knowledge of the 16 needs. I later evaluated the needs of each player on an NCAA Division I baseball team, NCAA Division I golf team, and a soccer and a tennis team playing in NCAA Division III. The results showed dramatic differences in what motivated the various teams. The Division I players were primarily motivated by competition and achievement, whereas the Division III players - i.e., those from smaller schools - were primarily motivated by social experiences. In other words, Division I athletes wanted to win, but those playing in Division III wanted to make friends.

After evaluating each player's needs, I interviewed him or her one-on-one. I might say to a baseball player, for example, "The results of my assessment suggest that you have a tendency to perform better on game day than in practice. We know my assessments are often invalid; in your case, do you play better on game day than during practice?" Despite the invitation to disagree with my assessment of their needs, we found that the athletes agreed with about 85% of the tendencies suggested to them.

We then consulted separately with the players' coaches, who also agreed with the vast majority of the results. By the end of the year, the Division I golf team finished sixth in the nation (the best performance in the history of the university) and the baseball team showed modest improvement over the previous year. (We did not ask the Division III teams for performance outcomes because their stated goal was participation, not winning.)

Peter and I then expanded our model of sports motivation. Our current model uses an individual's needs to suggest: (1) What motivates each athlete; (2) What are the athlete's tendencies (such as inconsistency, leadership); (3) How each athlete is likely to relate to the coaching staff (what specifically each athlete likes and dislikes about each coach; what specifically each coach likes and dislikes about each player); and (4) How coaches might best utilize their players' characteristics in various game situations.

Peter has had significant success using the 16 human needs: One of his teams won a world championship in handball while playing before a television audience estimated at 20 million. Peter consulted with a major league professional soccer team who played in a national championship game. Matthias Steiner, with whom Peter consulted for two years, won the gold medal in weightlifting at the Beijing Olympics and is now the "strongest man in the world." In the United States Dr. David Laman has successfully used the 16 human needs in coaching a star high school hockey player.

Thus far, we have assessed more than 1,000 athletes, the vast majority of whom think our theory identifies and explains their particular athletic tendencies. I have published two books on human needs: "Who am I," which is the book Peter applied to sports, and "The Normal Personality: A New Way of Thinking about People" (Cambridge University Press).

Pavlov’s Stock Market

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:50:44 +0000

The laws of Pavlovian learning are similar to the laws governing the learning of expectations in humans. In this analogy "conditioned stimuli" are market indicators, and "unconditioned stimuli" are changes in market directions.

Right now, a number of indicators point to rising stock prices. These are very low interest rates, inexpensive prices, an improving economy, and upward momentum. I can think of only one significant indicator pointing to lower prices, namely, overbought condition.

When a number of CSs are presented in compound, super expectations occur. (This is called "super-excitatory conditioning.) Even when these CSs are followed by reinforcement, often the conditioned bonds are decremented in strength because the amount of reinforcement is less than expected.

Stock market expectations are high right now. If the laws of Pavlovian conditioning hold, anything less than a soaring market could disappoint investors who may reason that the gains are less than expected.

Bottom line: The Pavlov dog indicator predicts that a correction in stock prices will come soon, perhaps very soon, after mediocre/modest rises in prices.

Myers Briggs: The Message is Tolerance

Steven Reiss, Ph.D. — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:57:30 +0000

Have you noticed the huge disconnect between human relations professionals and the academic community in regard to personality assessment? Human relations professionals use the Myers Briggs personality assessment, which the academic community has criticized as being "pseudoscientific." What is going on here? Why is an instrument negatively evaluated by academia so popular?

The message of Myers Briggs is powerful: We are very different from each other in terms of our traits, values, and perceptions of the world. The differences are so great we often misunderstand each other, which leads to unnecessary conflicts and other problems. We need to see the world more through the eyes of others to appreciate why they do what they do. We need to stop confusing individuality for disorder. The solution is tolerance, not diagnostic labels.

Academics have criticized Myers Briggs because of issues arising from the theory of personality types and concerns about the psychometric validity of the measure, especially factorial validity. In my opinion, however, the popularity of Myers Briggs has more to do with its broader message of tolerance than its specific theory of personality types. Historically, we have seen advocates for tolerance of race, culture, and sexual orientation. Myers Briggs is a rare example of tolerance of diverse personalities.