Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Although empirical research on motivation has been growing, one remarkable observation is that the same major theories continue to dominate the field, and the constellation of motivation theories has changed very little in recent decades. We argue that this status quo can be explained by the ways in which the major motivation theories are formulated and tested. Specifically, while existing theories of motivation have identified important motivation constructs (e.g., goals, values, needs), the theories are somewhat underspecified and lack a detailed account of the dynamic causal mechanisms that underpin motivated behavior. Thus, strong tests of these theories are difficult, and empirical tests of the theories tend to consist of simple and rather obvious tests of statistical relationships between the constructs and their antecedents and outcomes. It is imperative that motivation theories be formulated with greater specificity for the field to advance. More formal training in theory and theory development is thereby needed, and we encourage (especially early-career) researchers to engage in more lively discussions about the theories themselves, rather than simply continuing to test them.
Murayama et al. (Thu,) studied this question.