Concepts of Motivation

This Reversal Theory lecture presentation was created by Associate Professor Ken Heskin of Swinburne University of Technology, and was part of the Swinburne Psychology third year course on the Psychology of Personality (Lecture presented 21 May 1997).

Motivation as an issue pervades the study of personality. The key question of personality is "What makes us tick?" and ideas about motivation are fundamental to several theoretical responses to that question which you have studied so far in AY312. Having said that, theorists differ in the explicit emphasis which they place on the dynamic and motivational aspects of functioning, depending on the aspects of personality which are the focus of their interest. Within personality theory, theorists such as Henry Murray (1938) have placed a heavy and explicit emphasis on the motivational process itself and the variety of needs which motivate human behaviour, such as need for affiliation, need for nurturance and so forth. Other motivational theorists have concentrated on non-biological or particularly human motivations, such as achievement motivation (McLelland, 1961) or the power motive (Winter, 1973).

As an introduction to motivation in AY312, we are going to have a brief look at a very interesting, modern and developing theory of motivation called the theory of psychological reversals, otherwise known as reversal theory, or RT for short. This theory was developed by Michael Apter and was first fully expounded in his 1982 book entitled "The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals".

Reversal theory is a current and active theory that emphasizes the dynamics of motivation, its propensity to fluctuate and change, and the effects of such changes on the way we perceive our environment and engage with it. For the purposes of AY312, we are going to concentrate on only one (albeit very important) aspect or dimension of the theory. This concerns the issue of whether we are motivated to achieve some specific and unavoidable goal (RT refers to this state as "telic") or whether we are just enjoying the experience of whatever we are doing (RT refers to this state as "paratelic").  

Back to Contents

Michael Apter did his PhD at Bristol University in England on a cybernetic topic (the Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University, Professor Iain Wallace, was also doing his PhD there at the same time and in the same general area). (Cybernetics is the comparative study of complex machines, such as computers, and animals, particularly humans, and the means by which they communicate with each other and are controlled internally). His theory of psychological reversals (developed initially with psychiatrist, Dr Kenneth Smith, his father) blends cybernetic aspects with a phenomenological approach, an unusual combination, to come up with a very general and widely applicable theory of human functioning which could best be described as structural phenomenology. The focus of the theory is on experience, the mental correlate of behaviour, which has been the poor relation of psychological study, perhaps to the disappointment of many of its students. Many of us feel that our experience is central to our lives - we all tend to spend rather a lot of time in our own heads. Psychology often tends to be supply driven rather than demand driven!

 Back to Contents

Apter points out that some of the most significant and important forms of human behaviour have little in the way of overt behavioural signs and it is the meanings, the effects and the consequences of that "minimal behaviour", our thoughts and feelings, our insights and realisations, our discoveries and creations, which are important. You might like to think about the contrast between this view and the view put forward by behavioural theorists such as Skinner. Apter highlights the "gratuitous" nature of much human behaviour from a biological perspective (such as art, religion, humour and sport) and its often "paradoxical" nature which puts in jeopardy the survival of the individual or the species (dangerous sports, alcoholism & drug-taking, suicide, celibacy). To the reductionists, the behaviourists, the geneticists and so forth, Apter would respond that their views are too linear and too simple to adequately explain the diversity of human behaviour. He regards the human organism as similar in some crucial ways to a highly complex machine which is relatively autonomous in that it uses the environment and information from it rather than simply reacting to it as in some theoretical approaches.

Back to Contents

At the heart of the theory is a quite radical view of motivation and our experience of motivation which challenges several of the fundamental assumptions in psychology about the mechanisms influencing our behaviour. To illustrate the nature and scope of Apter's basic premises, I would briefly like to do a whistlestop historical tour of some of the important assumptions within psychology about the relationship between motivation and human experience and behaviour.

Back to Contents

Apter argues that either explicitly or implicitly, many theories in psychology are based on a homeostatic model, that is they adhere to the notion that we have one preferred level of motivation or arousal, one point of equilibrium which we seek to maintain. For example, in personality psychology, Freud talks of cathexes (driving forces) and anti-cathexes (restraining forces) which operate to maintain the equilibrium of the individual. In social psychology, equilibrium theories of attitude change are based on the notion that we seek equilibrium within and among our attitudes, find the lack of it unpleasant and seek to restore it when it is disturbed. In classic motivational psychology, drive theory (Dollard et al., 1939) talks about biological needs creating increased arousal and generating drives which activate behaviours to satisfy them, reduce the arousal and restore homeostasis or equilibrium.

This orientation reflects psychology's historical base disciplines of physiology and philosophy. Homeostatic mechanisms are recognized as governing many of our physiological functions. For example, our bodies tend to regulate our temperature at a single level and invoke mechanisms to deal with fluctuations above or below that point of equilibrium, or homeostatic level. Homeostasis is also inherent in the philosophical notion of "rational man".

Back to Contents

For the first half of this century, the predominant model underlying motivational theories was that high levels of drive or arousal are unpleasant and to be avoided by the psychological system, while low levels are comfortable and are sought by the system. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, implicitly adheres to a low level of motivation or arousal as the ideal level and posits a system which is oriented towards reducing instinctual arousal to a comfortable and low level.

Hull's drive-reduction theory was also in this mould and saw the organism as engaged in a constant process of taking action to reduce drive levels to a low level when they rise (Hull, 1943).  Click here for the MINIMAL AROUSAL MODEL (Anything above low arousal is unpleasant).

Back to Contents

These ideas began to run out of steam as researchers grappled with observations quite unpredicted by the theory, such as the apparent pursuit of high levels of arousal by individuals engaged in risky and voluntary activities. Activities such as dangerous sports or mountain-climbing expeditions are pretty difficult to square with the minimal arousal model. Conversely, evidence from sensory deprivation studies that low levels of arousal are actually very distressing and anxiety-provoking for most people did not fit the theory either. The minimal arousal theory ran into troubles on all sides.

The major tack in the face of this evidence was to try to stay within the homeostatic framework and posit concepts like a curiosity drive or an exploratory drive that would be reduced by increased stimulation. This fairly contorted idea died a natural death, however, and the notion that did take root was Hebb's (1955) idea of optimal arousal at an intermediate rather than low level, with both very low and very high levels of arousal being unpleasant and aversive. This tied in with the observable data in a more satisfactory way and was an altogether more elegant and sensible idea.  Click here for the OPTIMAL AROUSAL MODEL [Anything above moderate arousal unpleasant]

Back to Contents

Many sporting and leisure activities are in this category, both for active participants and for spectators. We enjoy watching dramas, comedies, horror movies, racy current affairs or "infotainment" programs, all standard fare on television. Many such programmes are designed to "wind people up" about events and issues. Some of us drive fast, ride on roller-coasters, take bungy jumps, go parachuting and so forth. In other words, very high arousal is not necessarily unpleasant and we actively seek to experience it from time to time. In the optimal arousal model, excitement and relaxation occupy the same mid/mild territory, which does not make intuitive sense, and excitement is allegedly only mildly arousing!

I have been a motor-cycle racing fan for as long as I can remember, and those of you who know about racing of pretty well any kind will know that the line between glory and disaster when people are trying hard is very thin indeed. I have often watched Michael Doohan, the brilliant Australian 500cc rider and current World Champion from Queensland, making up for a poor start. Starting has not always his forte, although he has definitely improved dramatically in recent years. My heart has been in my mouth on these occasions when he has had a bad start, alternately willing him on to make up the last 2 or 3 seconds which would give him the race and cautioning him to take it easy and fearing for his safety.

Alas, I missed the 1996 Spanish Grand Prix which Doohan won in the closing moments by passing the local Spanish hero and his Honda team-mate, Alex Creville, on the last bend. Creville unfortunately crashed, ending nowhere rather than in the second place he deserved - that thin line between glory and disaster! These events are really very exciting and arousing in the physiological sense because they are right on the edge between control and catastrophe. For spectators, arousal levels are very high, but this is pleasure, make no mistake. You will no doubt all be able to relate to these experiences from your own sporting involvement, either as a participant or a spectator.

Back to Contents

Apter argues that a homeostatic model of motivation or arousal, with its single point of equilibrium, simply does not accord with the known facts of people's behaviour and experience and I would have to say that I believe he is right (I am, of course biased - you make up your own mind!). I think most of us would recognise many occasions in our daily lives when we actively seek and enjoy high levels of arousal and this phenomenon is simply not accounted for in current theories of motivation. Apter therefore argues in principle for multistability, or the recognition of more than one point of motivational equilibrium, or more than one ideal point of arousal, to take account of the observation that we can and do actively seek, enjoy and wish to maintain high levels of arousal.

Back to Contents

You will note that I am here using arousal and motivation loosely and interchangeably to some extent. This is deliberate. Despite the many, subtle and varied kinds of psychological motivation which we can discern in our own behaviour and in the behaviour of others, at the level of associated physiological arousal, the picture is largely one-dimensional. It appears from the work of Schachter and Singer (1962), for example, that we tend to interpret the details of even our own motivational states from situational cues, with physiological cues providing only rather gross and unclear indications that some change has occurred.

Back to Contents

As someone who has spent many years sailing racing dinghies, I know personally the excitement, the sheer thrill and the anxiety of trying to control a speeding, flimsy, wayward sailing boat in a large fleet in strong winds. Those of you who have watched the Australian Sixteen Foot Skiff racing on local television will have a sense of what I mean - the fleets in those races are not large, but the events make up for it in the sheer speed of the boats and the skill required to sail them. In my own experience, there is on the one hand, the fear of a big sea, the possibility of capsize or collision, damage to the boat or injury to the crew, and the anxiety which these possibilities generate in one's mind. On the other hand, there is the competitive urge, the thrill of sailing the boat to the limits of one's ability and the sheer pleasure of being in the midst of wind, waves, sails, equipment, crew, competitors and the whole hectic experience of it. Very high arousal in these circumstances can fluctuate between producing strong anxiety and sheer, unadulterated pleasure. The arousal level, please note, is always high, but it is experienced in two diametrically opposed ways as either unpleasant anxiety or as very pleasurable and thrilling experience. It is never experienced as both, but always as one or the other, depending on the moment.

Back to Contents

The idea of reversal comes from this phenomenon of reversing between two poles of experience and experiencing the same things in two opposing ways. We are already familiar with these ideas in other areas. Here are examples:

In regard to flying, many of us will have shared the experience of alternating between the thrill of being pushed into our seats by the g-forces of the plane's rapid acceleration at take-off, and the anxiety of contemplating the consequences of something going wrong, especially at this most vulnerable moment of the journey. These alternations of opposing experiences are examples of the reversals from which reversal theory derives its name.

Back to Contents

This idea of dual and opposite phenomenological possibilities for the interpretation of our experience is central to the theory of psychological reversals. In reversal theory, these frames of mind are referred to as metamotivational states to indicate that they relate to our motivation, but are not our motivation. Rather, they refer to the way we phenomenologically interpret our motivation. While in theory, as we noted, Apter argues for multistability, in practice, he argues for bistability or two points of equilibrium, depending on the metamotivational state of the individual. The reversal theory model of arousal below illustrates this "two hump" model of arousal and its phenomenology as opposed to the "one hump" optimal arousal model and the "half hump" minimal arousal model. Essentially, in the reversal theory model, our phenomenological experience of arousal depends on whether we are in a telic or paratelic metamotivational state. (NB while metamotivational state may sound like a complex idea, think of it as simply a frame of mind or a state of mind, an idea with which we are all familiar and which will do the job of getting to grips with RT nicely.)  Click here for the REVERSAL THEORY AROUSAL MODEL  [High & low arousal have forms which are equally pleasant or unpleasant depending on the preferred state.

Back to Contents

Situations of high arousal can lead to particularly dramatic reversals. If I were sailing in strong winds, in a telic metamotivational state, I might be concentrating on the business of responding to changes in wind force and direction, avoiding other boats, keeping an eye on equipment in case of failure, offering advice to my crew (usually in loud and unprintable terms!) - all directed to the goal of keeping crew and boat safe and upright, finishing the race and getting ashore again in one piece. Here the arousal is unwanted, is experienced as anxiety and is unpleasant. When the boat is speeding along and competitors are being overtaken or left behind and the situation is under control (especially if it is just under control), my arousal is more likely to be experienced as exhilaration and I would want this paratelic metamotivational state to last. Smoking!

The most fundamental pair of metamotivational states in reversal theory, then, is the telic/paratelic pair of modes. ("Modes" is another word that is sometimes used in the RT literature instead of metamotivational states. Remember that metamotivational states, frames of mind, states of mind and modes all mean essentially the same thing). Telic (from the Greek "telos") means goal-oriented, while paratelic indicates that there is also a goal but of a different kind and function. In the telic mode, pleasure comes primarily from movement towards achieving a goal and from the achievement of the goal itself, while in the paratelic mode, pleasure derives from the activity itself, the immediate sensual gratification, the satisfaction of skilled performance, the suspense inherent in the activity and so forth. The table below shows what is meant by these terms in more detail and is taken from Apter (1982).  Click here for TELIC PARATELIC CHARACTERISTICS.

Back to Contents

In terms of the relationship between these modes and arousal, the telic mode is an anxiety-avoidance mode, which prefers lower levels of arousal. It is directed toward the attainment of a goal and even though the pursuit of that goal may involve high levels of arousal (as in the sailing example above), the objective is its attainment and the associated relief or relaxation (low arousal) generated by that accomplishment. In contrast, the paratelic mode is excitement-seeking and prefers to maintain high levels of arousal.

Back to Contents

Reversal theory posits that we reverse with varying degrees of regularity between one metamotivational state and its opposite and that therefore we often tend to be inconsistent, even in the same situation. Most of the theories that you have encountered in AY312 so far have stressed the consistency of our behaviour, at least across comparable situations, albeit suggesting very different theoretical reasons for that consistency. Most theories regard inconsistency as "noise" or random variation, although Freud gives theoretical significance to inconsistencies and slips of the tongue. In reversal theory, which is first and foremost a state theory (as in metamotivational states/states of mind), inconsistency is fundamental to an understanding of "What makes us tick?" and inconsistency in this sense (from the perspective of phenomenology and motivation, the two cornerstones of the theory) is psychologically healthy. If you are not inconsistent, you've got problems!

Back to Contents

Reversals between states arise because of:

1 Contingencies - things happen around us which alter our state of mind

2 Frustration  - For example, you might be working away at the AY312 Practical Report, feeling frustrated and getting nowhere and begin to contemplate prospective social activities. Your frustration could thus trigger a reversal from a telic to paratelic state. That has never happened to you, now, has it?

3 Satiation - RT theory states that normal, healthy people eventually reverse naturally between opposing states even in the absence of contingencies and frustrations; we are inherently inconsistent and we need to be so to maintain our psychological health.

Back to Contents

I came across a rather nice description of a reversal and its behavioural effects reading the Melbourne Age newspaper some time ago in a piece about Maradona, the South American football genius who played for Naples. I quote - "He could play like a dog and the fans would hiss and boo; then he would spot a woman on the sidelines who attracted him, and the hormones would sizzle and the skill would feed in like the afterburner on an F-18 interceptor. Ö. Fellow team members, accustomed to being eclipsed but sharing in the ultimate glory, would say that all they needed of Maradona was 10 minutes of talent in each match; they could handle the rest." {The Age, Saturday, 13 April, 1991}. I can think of two possible explanations within RT that would explain Maradona's apparent change in motivation and behaviour in the circumstances described. One explanation would involve a reversal, but the other would not. Why don't you go back to the Reversal Theory Arousal Model diagram and see if you can figure out two scenarios within RT which would explain Maradona's behaviour without "sizzling his hormones"? Incidentally, note that what is being described here is a person's inconsistency. We mostly talk about consistency in personality psychology.

Again, the Age in early 1994 provided another illustration of the interplay between metamotivational state and performance in an article entitled "Shamrock 'n'roll" about Jerry Lee Lewis, who is one of the original icons of rock and roll (he is over 60 and still performing), and is now living in Dublin, or was when I last heard. For those who regard all this as (a) ancient history and (b) a sure sign of senility on my part, you should know that his "Whole lotta shakin' goin' on", written in 1961, was regarded by John Lennon as the ultimate rock and roll song. Says Jerry in the article:

Here, Jerry Lee Lewis is apparently describing a ploy he uses when performing to generate high arousal in himself and his band members by introducing unpredictable elements into the situation which challenge them to rise to the occasion and interpret the arousal as excitement, within a paratelic frame of mind. Clearly, Jerry has confidence in his own and his band's abilities to succeed in the face of these challenges and therefore not to become anxious and be "put off" by these changes. Again, go back to the Reversal Theory Arousal Model diagram and think about this in the light of that model.

Back to Contents

These examples illustrate in a small way one of the most exciting aspects of reversal theory, namely its ability to inform and illuminate some of the most intractable and elusive questions about human behaviour, such as how we explain extraordinary feats of accomplishment, or performance, or creativity. RT suggests that we have to take states of mind into account. Of course, quoting aging rock 'n' roll stars probably sends the wrong message, but consider this quote from the Age, 17 March, 1995 in an article entitled "Does work make you stupid?":

' Ö creative ideas seem to come when a person "appears to be thinking about something else, or not really thinking at all". Ö..Genuine creativity also has close affinities to play. The controlling ego of the left brain lets go, the mind doodles and experiments, finding unexpected connections. By and large, such life-enhancing flow experiences, where the right brain emerges from incarceration, do not happen in offices.' The quote within the quotes above is from Margaret Boden, Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at Sussex University. Various autobiographical accounts of scientific discovery and creative achievement show this pattern of the crucial link in the chain falling into place when the scientist or artist has given up working at the problem for a while.

What is being described in the above examples are states of mind and inconsistency and these are being connected to peak levels of performance and creativity. Let me ask you a question. Which of the two RT states which we are considering here, namely telic and paratelic states, do you think are likely to be conducive to your absolutely best performance in whatever activity you choose to think of? Does that ring any bells in terms of your past experience?

Back to Contents

As implied above, metamotivational states are preferred states, that is to say that they refer to the mode we wish to be in, even though we may not yet be in it. For example, we may be sitting watching a television drama in paratelic mode when we remember that we have a report to write for tomorrow, possibly even the AY312 report! That realisation may trigger a reversal into telic mode even though we may not immediately get up and start writing as we continue to watch the show - but we will probably not enjoy the show as much as we did before that realisation and its attendant reversal into a telic metamotivational state. The high arousal generated by the program will begin to become unpleasant in the telic state.

Back to Contents

Finally, although reversal theory does talk of inconsistency in terms of our inevitable switches from one mode to another as a result of contingencies, frustration and simple satiation, it recognises that individuals may tend to be dominant in one mode as opposed to its opposite and therefore that people may characteristically spend more time (or at least, prefer to spend more time) in that mode, to varying degrees, as their circumstances allow. Tests have been developed to measure telic dominance or the degree to which individuals predominantly prefer the telic mode or the paratelic mode and there are equally short psychometric measures to indicate whether at any given point in time, an individual is in the telic or paratelic state.

Back to Contents

That is essentially the end of the 1998 AY312 lecture on reversal theory. I will expect you only to know about the concepts above in the AY312 examination. Material below is for your interest only, if you wish to know a little more. I have tried to give you a sense of what the fundamentals of the theory are and I have illustrated the approach of the theory in respect of its most fundamental and probably most important concept (certainly the one that has generated most research), namely the telic and paratelic pair of opposing states. Be aware that there are other dimensions in the theory. Among the topics not covered are the other pairs of metamovational states which are not only useful concepts in themselves for our understanding of behaviour, but which combine with each other to cover a very wide range of behavioural and experiential phenomena. Other modes include:

Back to Contents

Psychophysiology & RT

Professor Sven Svebak of the University Trondheim, a psychophysiologist, has been researching reversal theory for a number of years now and, as a psychophysiologist, he was unhappy both with the limitations of optimal arousal theory (humour) and of the dangers of blindly connecting physiological data to subjective experience without consulting the subject. In a series of studies, he has found, for example, that:

1 The highly telic subjects tend to exhibit high tonic muscle tension as measured by EMG (electromyographic) measures when engaged in a difficult perceptual-motor task whereas highly paratelic subjects do not (passive arm - video joystick driving task).

2 That under threat of electric shock on the same task, the heart rate acceleration was markedly and significantly higher for telics than paratelics.

3 That when interactions between Type A or B and telic dominance are taken into account, a very marked cardiovascular responder type emerges in Type A/Telic dominant (Type A has proved only a very modest predictor of heart disease). Note that both Type A and telic-dominant behaviour are to do with purpose, but telic-dominant behaviour is primarily about serious-mindedness whereas Type A behaviour is to do with impatience, competitiveness and hostility - which can characterise either telic or paratelic behaviour)

4 That there appear to be characteristic differences in what may be described as "cortical information-processing style" between telic and paratelic dominant subjects with higher power-spectrum scores in the theta and beta bands on EEG measures

Clearly, there are implications here for the conduct of psychophysiological research and for the psychology of health. This work should be followed up perhaps by studies of the mode dominance of heart patients to confirm the hypothesised pattern and prospective studies would be particularly valuable. It is possible, if these results hold, that much more effective screening procedures for potential health problems could be devised.

Back to Contents

In terms of therapy, reversal theory offers a new global framework for determining the best approach, rather than suggesting new kinds of therapy, although it adds some new tools to the therapeutic tool box and suggests ways in which existing therapies can be improved by the insights which reversal theory offers. Reversal theory conceptualises 5 major categories of psychological disorder, falling into 2 groupings:

A Structural Disturbance (across mode)

1 Inhibited reversal

2 Inappropriate reversal

B Inappropriate Strategies (within mode)

3 Functionally inappropriate

4 Temporally inappropriate

5 Socially inappropriate

Back to Contents

If we take a very common problem such as depression, for example, then reversal theory posits a number of forms of depression relevant to the discrepancy between the preferred mode and the actual mode. Hence anxiety depression, [in which the individual feels helpless about his chances of overcoming the tension of anxiety, or doing so for long] related to an inability to reduce arousal sufficiently within the telic mode to feel relaxed, perhaps because of inappropriate strategies, or to an inability to reverse to the paratelic mode and experience the arousal in a more pleasurable way. Or boredom depression, related to a preferred paratelic mode in which the individual despairs of finding the excitement he craves and finds life dull. At the other end of the paratelic dimension would be over-excitement depression, difficult perhaps to recognise outside the framework of reversal theory, in which the individual becomes overwhelmed by strong sensations as one might due to the overuse of drugs, for example. And finally, at the other end of the telic dimension, apathy depression in which one recognises goals but has no inclination to pursue them - this could even be as a result of the achievement of some major goal like the completion of a PhD or book which often leaves people flat and other goals seem unimportant for some time afterwards.

Back to Contents

In terms of new inputs to existing therapeutic strategies, reversal theory suggests some interesting ideas. The paratelic mode, for example, seems to be associated with our ability to try new and radical solutions to problems which we are unable to reach in the telic mode. (Experience of trying to solve a problem, giving up and then being "hit" by the solution when we have switched off). Hence it may be important where a counsellor is trying to get a client to approach a situation from a radically different perspective, or where a particular therapy involves role play, to ensure that they are in the paratelic mode which will facilitate their ability to perceive new perspectives on their lives. Here, the judicious use of humour, for example, may be helpful in some cases as humour is only experienced in the paratelic mode.

In respect of counseling people from Asian backgrounds, for example, difficulties have been encountered in that a Western approach to therapy involves the client in actively producing their own solutions whereas Asian people may have a cultural expectation that the therapist will be more directive and prescriptive. In the perspective of reversal theory, considerable initial attention should be given to promoting a reversal to a paratelic state with such clients, although humour may be an inappropriate vehicle given the different cultural perspective on how a therapist should behave.

Back to Contents