                       8.  MOTIVATIONAL THEORY OF CHANGE.
                  
             The motivation to accept change falls somewhere between the
        behaviorists' approaches and the aggression theories.  Korman
        (1974) argued that in American society people must do at least
        three things if they are to live their lives effectively.  First,
        they must achieve on tasks, whatever those tasks might be. 
        Second, people must be able to keep interpersonal conflict and
        aggression toward others under sufficient control so that such
        behavior will not become debilitating and consume so much time
        and effort that personal goals cannot be achieved.  Third, people
        must possess the capacity to be creative and change if the
        environment calls for it.  This last condition is important in
        today's dynamic society because of the exponential rates of
        change people face.
        
             Korman (1974) maintained that an integrated theory of
        motivational processes of change contain these three components:
             1.   Motivational processes are a function of the drive to
                  be consistent with belief systems about the nature of
                  the self, others, and the world.
             2.   Belief systems leading to differing levels of
                  achievement, creativity, and aggression are a function
                  of and develop in the same environments.
             3.   Changing environments in certain directions specified
                  by the theoretical model will result in changes in
                  achievement, creativity, and aggression (p. 226).
        
             Korman believed that humans are motivated first, to achieve
        outcomes that are consistent with their evaluative beliefs about
        themselves, and their evaluative beliefs about others, and the
        degree to which they believe that there is one set of values to
        guide behavior in this world.  Second, humans learn about
        themselves, others, and the world as a function of the actual and
        symbolically stated opinions of others.  Thus, holding other
        learning experiences about the self and others constant, the more
        the individual human being interacts with a world that encourages
        a certain system of beliefs about the self, others, and the
        world, the more these beliefs become part of the individual.  The
        motivation to change becomes a function of three different facets
        of a human being's life experience (Korman, 1974, p. 228).  The
        more these three are integrated together in an effective manner,
        the more successful the individual will be in living his or her
        life.  
        
             Festinger (1954) supported this position by maintaining that
        humans are motivated to learn about self and others and establish
        a socially real world.  He wrote that in a world of social
        behavior, since there is no physical reality, the only way for a
        person to establish a system of evaluative beliefs about the self
        and others and the variability of the world is to interact with
        others, both overtly and symbolically.  He made the following
        predictions:
             1.   People of high self-perceived competence and positive
                  self-image should be more likely to achieve on task
                  performance than those who have low self-perceived
                  competence, low success expectancy and low self-image
                  concerning the task or job at hand.  Since such
                  differential task achievement would be consistent with
                  self-cognitions, people view task performance as
                  valuable.  
             2.   People who have beliefs that there is one set of rules
                  to guide behavior in this world and that there is one
                  way of looking at the world are more likely to be
                  opposed to creative change, change in general, and to
                  those people or things that are different or constitute
                  a change from themselves, since such change would be
                  inconsistent with their belief systems.
             3.   People who have beliefs that people, in general, are
                  not desirable, cannot be trusted, and must be
                  controlled by threats and punishments are more likely
                  to develop aggressiveness toward others and are more
                  likely to engage in generally hostile interpersonal
                  behavior, since such types of behavior would be
                  consistent with their belief systems about people (p.
                  290).
        
             There is considerable research to support the findings of
        Korman and Festinger.  Erlich and Lee (1969) and Torcivia and
        Rokeach (1968) found that dogmatism in people is negatively
        correlated with the ability to learn new beliefs.  Restle,
        Andrews, and Rokeach (1964) proposed that highly dogmatic
        individuals are more likely to learn problems involving the
        simple following of authority, while low dogmatists are more
        likely to do well on problems involving the learning of new
        principles.  Druckman (1967) found in people a resistance to
        compromise with the other side during collective bargaining
        (simulated) and the tendency to use unilateral planning (as
        opposed to bilateral discussion) is positively correlated with
        dogmatism scores.  Eckhardt and Newcombe (1969) discovered that
        dogmatism loads heavily on the same factor with authoritarianism
        and a belief in militarism and an aggressive foreign policy. 
        Fillenbaum and Jackman (1961) found that dogmatism is negatively
        related to the likelihood of rejecting standard operating
        procedures and developing new procedures into a working system. 
        Vacchiano et al (1969) showed that dogmatism is negatively
        related to looking for new approaches in music, art, and films. 
        In a separate study, the same team found that dogmatism is
        negatively related to acceptance of liturgical change among
        Catholics and acceptance of technological change in the factory. 
        Lastly, Berkowitz (1962), in studying Europe before the second
        world war, found that dogmatism is positively correlated with
        dislike of dissimilar religions.  It is clear that dogmatism
        adversely affects the motivation to change when new and dynamic
        situations are presented to the individual.
        
             Environment often affects how individuals adapt.  The
        following studies showed that environment does have a significant
        effect on how effectively the individual accepts change in
        his/her life.  
        
             Domino (1969) found that mothers of creative high-school
        males valued autonomy and independence, preferred change and lack
        of structure, and exhibited great self assurance.  The mothers of
        a control group scored lower on all these variables.  Adams
        (1968) found that the creation of an experimental atmosphere with
        decreased evaluation by others and perception of control and
        evaluation by others resulted in higher scores on tests of
        creative thinking.  
        
             Buetzkow (1965) discovered that innovativeness in
        organizations is negatively related to hierarchical
        centralization of authority and positively related to lack of
        programming and rule orientation.  Regarding change in an
        environment, Coch and French (1948) studied how, in a decreasing
        hierarchy with external controls and task specialization, a
        "change" program increased receptivity to the goals of the
        "change."  Strain, Unikel, and Adams (1969) found that middle-
        class subjects were more likely to engage in alternative behavior
        than those from lower-class backgrounds.  Their contention was
        that middle class environments were discovered to be generally
        less hierarchical than the lower class.  
        
             Korman (1970) showed that individuals in college
        environments where hierarchical control, programming, and
        specialization have been de-emphasized are more likely to accept
        continuing changes in the university and its functioning.  Korman
        (1963) and Sutton and Porter (1968) found that individuals in
        specialized roles and occupations were more likely not to
        sympathize with people different from themselves and were less
        likely to communicate with such different individuals on an
        informal basis.  
        
             Related to creativity, Maier and Hoffman (1961) showed that
        individuals who were employed in hierarchical organizations do
        more poorly on creative tasks than those who have not been
        employed by such organizations.  Hoffman, Harburg, and Maier
        (1962) discovered the correlation between creativity and an
        individual's position related to his or her supervisor.  In a
        less hierarchical system, creativity was fostered in individuals
        who were not subjected to the control of their supervisors.  
        
             In studying group behavior, Ziller, Behringer, and Goldstein
        (1962) discovered that groups which experience changes in
        membership were more creative than those that were stable. 
        Steiner (1965) showed that organizations that hire unusual,
        different types of people, were more likely to be creative
        organizations.  Watson (1960) and Getzels and Jackson (1962)
        found that creative children come from homes (a) marked by a lack
        of parental dominance and structures, and (b) where individual
        divergence was permitted and risk accepted.  
        
             From these studies, environment can be seen to be a major
        factor in affecting how an individual develops within the context
        of his or her society.
