No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Almost, but not quite there: Research into the emergence of higher-order motivated behavior should fully embrace the dynamic systems approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2025
Abstract
Murayama and Jach rightfully aim to conceptualize motivation as an emergent property of a dynamic system of interacting elements. However, they do not embrace the ontological and paradigmatic constraints of the dynamic systems approach. They therefore miss the very process of emergence and how it can be formally modeled and tested by specific types of computer simulation.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1977). Emergence and the mind. Neuroscience, 2(4), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(77)90047-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hartigh, R. J., Cox, R. F., & van Geert, P. L. (2017). Complex versus complicated models of cognition. In Magnani, L. & Bertolotti, T. (Eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 657–669). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernigon, C., Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Vallacher, R. R., & van Geert, P. L. C. (2024). How the complexity of psychological processes reframes the issue of reproducibility in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(6), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231187324CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gernigon, C., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., & Conroy, D. E. C. (2015). Rethinking approach and avoidance in achievement contexts: The perspective of dynamical systems. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guastello, S. J., & Liebovitch, L. S. (2009). Introduction to nonlinear dynamics and complexity. In Guastello, S. J., Koopmans, M. & Pincus, D. (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 1–40). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M., & Woodward, J. (1999). Independence, invariance and the causal Markov condition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50(4), 521–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/50.4.521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT Press.Google Scholar
López-Pernas, S., & Saqr, M. (2024). How the dynamics of engagement explain the momentum of achievement and the inertia of disengagement: A complex systems theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 153, 108126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, A. (2004). Dynamical minimalism: Why less is more in psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.) (2017). Computational social psychology. Routledge/Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Maas, H. L. J., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113(4), 842–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Geert, P., & de Ruiter, N. (Eds.) (2022). Toward a process approach in psychology: Stepping into Heraclitus’ River. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.331CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallot, S., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G. (2018). Interaction-dominant causation in mind and brain, and its implication for questions of generalization and replication. Minds and Machines, 28(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9455-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
A critique of motivation constructs to explain higher-order behavior: We should unpack the black box
Related commentaries (25)
Adopt process-oriented models (if they're more useful)
Almost, but not quite there: Research into the emergence of higher-order motivated behavior should fully embrace the dynamic systems approach
Beyond reductionism: Understanding motivational energization requires higher-order constructs
Connecting theories of personality dynamics and mental computational processes
Definitional devils and detail: On identifying motivation as an animating dynamic
Don't throw motivation out with the black box: The value of a good theory revisited
Endogenous reward is a bridge between social/cognitive and behavioral models of choice
Expectancy value theory's contribution to unpacking the black box of motivation
Exploring novelty to unpack the black-box of motivation
Higher-order motivational constructs as personal-level fictions: A solution in search of a problem
Human motivation is organized hierarchically, from proximal (means) to ultimate (ends)
It's bigger on the inside: mapping the black box of motivation
Mental computational processes have always been an integral part of motivation science
Motivation needs cognition but is not just about cognition
Motivational constructs: Real, causally powerful, not psychologically constructed
Motivational whack-a-mole: Foundational boxes cannot be unpacked
Needed: Clear definition and hierarchical integration of motivation constructs
Postcard from inside the black box
Predictive processing: Shedding light on the computational processes underlying motivated behavior
Resurrecting the “black-box” conundrum
The ins and outs of unpacking the black box: Understanding motivation using a multi-level approach
The role of metacognitive feelings in motivation
The unboxing has already begun: One motivation construct at a time
There's no such thing as a free lunch: A computational perspective on the costs of motivation
When unpacking the black box of motivation invites three forms of reductionism
Author response
Response to the critiques (and encouragements) on our critique of motivation constructs