                     4.  COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO MOTIVATION.
        
             The contemporary approach in studying human beings is to
        view the organism as always active, making behavioral-direction
        choices designed to achieve maximal outcomes.  Behavior is viewed
        as a continuing series of choices designed to obtain the best
        possible outcomes.  The empirical operations for the
        psychological variables to which causal inferences are attributed
        have been psychological scale measurements, rather than from
        mental operations.  
        
             While Hull was developing his theoretical system at Yale
        University, Tolman (1955), at the University of California at
        Berkeley was creating an alternative approach to motivational
        phenomena.  Tolman viewed motivational behavior as being
        initiated by various internal and external environmental cues and
        by disequilibrium situations of various kinds.  These cues
        combined with other characteristics of the organism, such as age,
        previous training, heredity, and specific physical
        characteristics of the moment, that result in three major
        intervening variables.  These variables were the major components
        of Tolman's theory.  They were:
             (1)  Demands for a specific goal,
             (2)  The degree to which the goal is available or exists in
                  the specific environment in which the organism finds
                  itself, and 
             (3)  His expectancies of achieving the goal in the specific
                  environment in which the organism finds himself.
        
             These three variables determine an organisms direction and
        persistence of behavior until the goal is reached.  He explained
        his theory in this manner.  The demand for a goal could be
        inferred by the speed with which an organism attacked that
        specific goal.  Goal behaviors are used as operational measures
        of demand for the goal.  The hypothesized causal-agent variable
        (goal demand) are manipulated by various antecedent conditions
        that determine goal demand.  These manipulations were then
        studied for their effect on dependent (behavior) variables, which
        for Tolman were selectivity and persistence of performance of
        behavior.  The H (heredity), A, (age), and other variables like
        environmental and physiological stimuli, and previous learning
        and training effect the expectancy of attaining the goal.  Goal
        availability was factored in to determine if it was currently
        achievable.  The direction of behavior was affected by these
        preceding factors.  If everything proceeded as expected, behavior
        persistence toward the goal continued and eventually the goal was
        achieved.  See Table 1. below.
        
        
                         BASIC FRAMEWORK OF TOLMAN MODEL
        
              OBSERVABLE
        ANTECEDENTS               INTERVENING
        VARIABLES                                       OBSERVABLE
                                                          SEQUENCES1.Environmen
              stimulation         Goal Demand         Direction of
              Behavior2.Physiological
              stimuli             Expectancy of
                                   attaining goal        Behavior
                                   persistence
                                                       toward specific
                                                            goal 3.Influence of
              heredity         Goal availability>>>>>4.Previous
              learning and
              training         Goal availability>>>>>5.MaturityGoal achievem
        (Tolman, 1955, p. 93)
        
             Despite attacks on his theory, Tolman was accurate in his
        insistence that the persistence and selectivity of performance
        was both a function of the organism itself and its immediate
        environment.  To understand a specific behavior, it was necessary
        to study both antecedents of environment and the individual, and
        not just the latter.  It was precisely this mistake that Hull
        made in 1943 and that he was forced to rectify in 1952 by the
        introduction of K, the incentive variable that reflected the
        environment the organism was in at that particular time in terms
        of its particular rewards.  For Hull and Spence, environmental
        expectancy aroused behavior by adding to drive, (D), and directed
        behavior by providing specific stimuli that activated appropriate
        directional habits.  For Tolman, environmental stimuli may steer
        and direct behavior by their presence as goals to be achieved in
        order to satisfy existing demands.  Environmental stimuli may
        also determine expectancies by the degree of their similarity to
        other environmental conditions whereby specific goals had been
        sought and achieved in the past (Korman, 1971b, p. 94).  
        
             Tolman successfully predicted that behavior would not be
        expected to occur when the goals and/or incentives to be achieved
        in the situation by behaving.  Rewards affected performance, not
        learning, a position that Hull and Spence eventually adopted. 
        Given these characteristics of Tolman's theory, he could explain
        the latent-learning experiment in the following manner, as
        summarized by Atkinson (1964):
             During the unrewarded trials, the animals develop cognitive
             expectations of the consequences of turning left or right at
             each of the various choice points.  After several trials in
             the maze, these forward-pointing expectations constitute a
             kind of "cognitive map" of the maze that is "refined" during
             each run...In Tolman's view, a hungry organism is always
             actively trying to find food.  After developing a more
             refined set of expectations concerning what does lead to
             what in the maze, the organism comes upon food, a demanded
             goal-object, in the end-box maze.  The next day, as a result
             of this recent experience added to the cognitive
             expectations of what leads to what which had been built up
             without reward in earlier trials, the organism has both a
             demand for food and an expectation of a food object in the
             end box when placed in the starting box.  The combination of
             these two determinants accounts for the sudden change in
             selectivity of performance at each choice point.  The
             organism now selects the "correct" response, which is the
             one that it expects will lead most quickly to the demanded
             goal object (p. 144).
        
             Tolman (1955) viewed the persisting individual-difference
        characteristics between organisms as important.  The individual
        differences between organisms as determinants of response,
        holding environmental variation constant, is one of the pervading
        characteristics of all forms of life.  Tolman felt that what an
        organism did in an experiment was not just a function of how the
        experimenter varied the environmental conditions.  It was a
        function of who and what the organism was genetically, what his
        previous learning experiences were, and other individual
        characteristics.  This type of individual, Tolman believed,
        interacted with the various conditions of the environment and as
        a result, determined the outcomes, not one or the other alone. 
        Tolman achieved creating the first systematic integration of one
        theory of logic of contemporary environmental determinants of
        behavior, and the logic of persisting individual differences in
        the kinds of goals sought independent of specific environmental
        variation of the time as joint determinants of behavior.
        
             Even though Tolman's work was significant, he left an
        incomplete and imperfect system.  He recognized this himself and
        stated so in his writings.  First, he never developed any clear
        statement of how his crucial antecedent variables were
        interrelated.  Second, he never really worked very much on the
        individual differences in demands and needs that he utilized as
        constructs in his system.  Finally, Tolman never provided an
        explicit rationale for the arousal of behavior.  He never made
        clear as to when and under what conditions these directional
        determinants become operative as arousers of behavior.   
        
             The historical antecedents to Tolman's work can be traced to
        Harvard psychologist, Henry Murray (1937).  His arguments
        involved a number of both content and methodological
        considerations.  He believed that the key to the understanding of
        human personality and motivation would not come from the
        biological, physiologically based theories of Hull or from
        insistence on experimental verification of hypotheses in
        laboratory settings.  He felt that much of what was important in
        human personality would manifest itself in everyday life. 
        Motivational processes could be best observed in naturalistic
        settings.  He argued that individual needs and motives were
        useful constructs to utilize when studying the psychology of
        motivational processes.  
        
             According to Murray (1937), a need or drive contained both a
        directional aspect that differentiates it from other needs, and
        an arousal component that actually precipitates the behavior. 
        The conditions under which the arousal component actually becomes
        activated in Murray's system were not clear.  However, the
        concept of the end state of behavior being more important than
        specific behaviors themselves was useful in developing an
        adequate conceptualization of motivation on the human level for
        the following reasons:
             1.   Physical survival depends on achieving certain
                  outcomes, not on what behaviors are used.
             2.   Certain effects are universally attained by living
                  organisms, but the behaviors that attain them vary
                  greatly.
             3.   During the life of a single individual, certain effects
                  are regularly attained but the behaviors involved
                  change.  
             4.   When confronted by a novel situation, an organism
                  persists in its efforts to bring about a certain
                  result, but with frustration it is apt to change its
                  mode of attack; hence, the trend is the constant
                  feature and the behavioral mechanisms utilized are the
                  inconstant.  
             5.   There are some effects that can only be attained by
                  entirely novel behaviors.
             6.   That specific behaviors are secondary is shown by the
                  fact that many biologically necessary effects may be
                  brought about by another person.
             7.   Complex action is characterized by muscular
                  contractions in widely separate parts of the organism,
                  contractions which manifest synchronous and consecutive
                  coordination.  Such organization of movement must be
                  partially determined by a directional process, which is
                  what a need, by definition, is.
             8.   Presenting a desired end state during a behavior
                  sequence should not stop behavior if external stimuli
                  were the only determinants of behavior.  Behavior does
                  end when these sudden presentations of desired end
                  states are made, suggesting that need and the desired
                  end state are the crucial determinants of behavior.
             9.   When a need is not in a state of readiness, responses
                  to specific stimuli do not occur.
             10.  When a particular need is active, common objects in the
                  environment may evoke unusual responses, that is,
                  responses that promote the progress of the active need.
             11.  When a need becomes active, characteristic behavior
                  will usually ensue even in the absence of customary
                  stimuli.
             12.  It is difficult to interpret without a concept of
                  directional tension experimentally demonstrable
                  phenomena such as the resumption of unpleasant work
                  after interruption; the repetition of once-active
                  trends with different movements; the increase of
                  striving after opposition.
             13.  There are conscious correlates of desires.
             14.  Among the commonest subjective experiences is the
                  feeling of conflict between desires.
             15.  Because of its close connection with happiness and
                  distress, a need is more "important" than a behavior
                  pattern.
             16.  Experience seems to show that a certain desire may
                  sometimes give rise to a dream or fantasy and at other
                  times, promote direct activity.
             17.  Introspection and experiment demonstrate that a need
                  may determine the direction of attention and markedly
                  influence the perception and appreciation
                  (interpretation) of external occurrences; to influence
                  sensory and cognitive processes, a need must be some
                  force in the brain region (pp. 112-113).
        
             Murray's arguments raised many questions that more recent
        research continues to explain.  They are:
             1.   Why do people develop high motives for such goal
                  outcomes as task achievement, or influencing harm on
                  others, or having an orderly world?
             2.   What do we mean by pleasure and why can outcome be
                  pleasurable for one person and another outcome
                  pleasurable for another?
             3.   Is there one common basis for pleasure as a desired
                  outcome of behavior that can be defined independent of
                  the behaviors designed to achieve it in the same sense
                  used in physiological-need reduction and its
                  derivatives as a basis for motivational behavior?
             4.   What about achievement, affiliation, order as
                  motivators?
        
             McClelland (1955) answered these questions with the
        following comprehensive theoretical positions.  He summed them up
        in this manner:
             1.   A hedonistic explanation for the arousal of behavior is
                  assumed; that is, it is assumed that individuals are
                  motivated to seek pleasant affect and to avoid negative
                  affect.
             2.   The degree to which a given environmental situation has
                  pleasant or negative affect, and thus will stimulate
                  either approach behavior or avoidance behavior, is
                  defined in a non-circular fashion and stems from
                  discrepancy.
             3.   Given this conceptual way of looking at what arouses
                  behavior, it follows logically that humans are
                  motivated to achieve end states that involve a moderate
                  discrepancy from previous adaptation levels to avoid
                  end states that involve extreme discrepancies from
                  previous adaptation levels (p. 215).
             
             Considering its non-circular aspects and its considerations
        of the arousal problem, McClelland's theory was a major
        conceptual step in the development of an adequate expectancy-
        value theory of motivation.  The actual end goal of behavior is
        defined differently and independently of the sources of the
        behavioral arousal.  The end goals are the attainment of moderate
        discrepancies from the previous stimulus adaptation level and the
        avoidance of extreme discrepancies.  
