Abstract
This chapter presents an overview of the role of unconscious motivation and its relationship to conscious motivation. It provides a commentary on interesting findings from mainstream psychology pointing to the pervasive role of unconscious processes in human motivation. The discussion is then linked to language learning, where comparable findings are found. These findings emerged from various instruments and methodologies, including the matched-guise test, the Implicit Association Test, the Single-Target Association Test, and qualitative observation. Finally some directions for future research are suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2015). Human agency: Does the beach ball have free will? In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 55–72). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016a). Unconscious motivation. Part I: Implicit attitudes toward L2 speakers. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 423–454. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.4
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016b). Unconscious motivation. Part II: Implicit attitudes and L2 achievement. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 619–649. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.4.4
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Sixty years of language motivation research: Looking back and looking forward. SAGE Open, 7(1), 215824401770197. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017701976
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A pychological interpretation. London, UK: Constable.
Anisfeld, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1964). Evaluational reactions of bilingual and monolingual children to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040913
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6, Pt.1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Delacorte.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.6.641
Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T. D., & Hassin, R. R. (2010). Inaccurate self-knowledge formation as a result of automatic behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 884–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.007
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 268–316). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Masicampo, E. J. (2014). Maybe it helps to be conscious, after all. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(01), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13000630
Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., & Gagnon, A. (1994). Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice (pp. 209–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2006). Discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-concepts: Consequences for information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.154
Carter, P., Fine, M., & Russell, S. (2014). Discipline disparities series: Overview. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
Caruso, E. M., Rahnev, D. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: Revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Social Cognition, 27(1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.128
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language learning: Frameworks for focused interventions. New York: Routledge.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York: Guilford Press.
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion, 15(2), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930125908
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.148
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. New York: Peter Lang.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press.
Giles, H. (1971). Patterns of evaluation to R.P., south welsh and Somerset accented speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(3), 280–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1971.tb00748.x
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton Keynes, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Giles, H., & Rakić, T. (2014). Language attitudes: Social determinants and consequences of language variation. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 11–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Attitudinal dissociation: What does it mean? In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 65–82). New York: Psychology Press.
Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018). Teacher–student relationships and L2 motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 218–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12446
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In B. Leonard (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93–136). Academic.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276
Hoffman, S. (2014). Zero benefit: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance discipline polices on racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy, 28(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812453999
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning: The virtues and pitfalls of a two-system view. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 25–46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ibrahim, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2019). Shared, sustained flow: Triggering motivation with collaborative projects. ELT Journal, 73(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy025.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London, UK: Macmillan.
Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005
Keatley, D. A., Clarke, D. D., Ferguson, E., & Hagger, M. S. (2014). Effects of pretesting implicit self-determined motivation on behavioural engagement: Evidence for the mere measurement effect at the implicit level. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.(Article 125). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00125
Kinzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). Children’s selective trust in native-accented speakers. Developmental Science, 14(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00965.x
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12577–12580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705345104
Kircher, R. (2016). The matched-guise technique. In Z. Hua (Ed.), Research methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide (pp. 196–211). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Koole, S. L., McCullough, M. E., Kuhl, J., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2010). Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309351109
Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00578.x
Lambert, W. E., Frankle, H., & Tucker, G. R. (1966). Judging personality through speech: A French-Canadian example. Journal of Communication, 16(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1966.tb00044.x
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044430
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 59–102). New York: Guilford Press.
Levinson, J. D., & Smith, R. J. (2012). Implicit racial bias across the law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Markus, H. (1990). On splitting the universe. Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00194.x
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23(7), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434539
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
Nordgren, L. F., Bos, M. W., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). The best of both worlds: Integrating conscious and unconscious thought best solves complex decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 509–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.007
Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005
Oyserman, D. (2013). Not just any path: Implications of identity-based motivation for disparities in school outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33, 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.09.002
Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Payne, B. K., & Gawronski, B. (2010). A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P. (Eds.). (2009). Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures. New York: Psychology Press.
Richardson, S. (2016, April). The ‘native factor’, the haves and the have-nots. Paper presented at the international IATEFL conference, Birmingham, UK.
Ryan, R. M., & Legate, N. (2012). Through a fly’s eye: Multiple yet overlapping perspectives on future directions for human motivation research. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 554–564). New York: Oxford University Press.
Scheier, M. E., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: The influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health. Journal of Personality, 55(2), 169–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00434.x
Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (Eds.). (2010). Implicit motives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York: Guilford Press.
Shutts, K., Banaji, M. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Social categories guide young children’s preferences for novel objects. Developmental Science, 13(4), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00913.x
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Looking ahead to the future. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 233–239). Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497–527. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. London, UK: SAGE.
Wigboldus, D. H. J., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Single target implicit associations. Unpublished manuscript.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: The Implicit Association Test
Appendix: The Implicit Association Test
An important consideration is how to measure an individual’s implicit attitudesif s/he is unaware of them and consequently cannot self-report them. One possible way is to use the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald et al., 1998), which is at present the most widely used measure ofimplicitattitudes. The IAT is a computerized reaction-time measure that simply requires classifying a series of words to the right or left as fast as possible. As an illustration of how this test works, Fig. 27.1 gives an example of the Flower–Insect IAT. This test measures how strongly the participant associates flowers and insects with good and bad. In the first part of the test (Fig. 27.1A), a stimulus appears in the middle of the screen (e.g., Roses) and the participant has to decide which box this stimulus belongs to and then press one of two designated buttons on the keyboard. In Fig. 27.1A, Roses belongs to Flower, and so the correct answer is the left box. Afterward, another stimulus appears (say, Cockroaches) and, again, the participant has to decide which of the four categories the stimulus belongs to in order to classify it to the correct box. The stimuli may belong to Flower (e.g., roses, orchids, tulips), Insect (e.g., cockroaches, mosquitoes, wasps), Good (e.g., smart, friendly, clean), or to Bad (e.g., dumb, enemy, dirty).
Note that this is not an attitude test per se. The stimuli are shown to the participant in advance with their correct categorization and, if they misclassify a stimulus, they get an error message immediately. The participant’s task is not to guess (or express their attitude about) the correct response, but to simply perform the test as fast as possible. Most participants therefore find the configuration in Fig. 27.1A very easy to perform and breeze through it.
In the second part of the test (Fig. 27.1B), Flower is paired with Bad while Insect with Good. This part suddenly feels considerably harder. This is because, in the first part, Flower and Good form one higher category (e.g., pleasant things), and Insect and Bad form another category (e.g., unpleasant things). Therefore, the participant in effect classifies the stimuli into only two—rather than four—categories (i.e., simply move all pleasant things to the left and unpleasant things to the right). In the second part, however, the participant has to sort the stimuli into the four categories (neither of the two pairs readily merges into one intuitive category), and so the task requires substantially more cognitive resources, resulting in slower performance.
This is why the two parts of the test (as in Fig. 27.1) are conventionally described as ‘compatible’ and ‘incompatible’, respectively. Compatible tasks are those that the researchers expect most participants to find easier (e.g., Flower–Good), while incompatible tasks are those that participants may find harder (e.g., Flower–Bad). This description also hints at why it is called the Implicit Association Test: implicit because participants find it hard to anticipate which configuration would be more difficult and are usually surprised by their own results, association because it measures the strength of the association of the categories in each pair, and test because it is a test of the participant’s performance speed. To the extent that categories of interest are paired with evaluative adjectives (e.g., good, bad), implicitattitudesare inferred from the response speed in the two parts of the test. The IAT is also flexible and can be easily adapted to measure implicit associations about various social objects, such as racial prejudice (e.g., White–Good, Black–Bad) and genderstereotypes (e.g., Male–Work, Female–Home). Further procedural details about the IAT are found in Lane, Banaji, Nosek, and Greenwald (2007). Readers can also try out demonstrations of the IAT at www.implicit.harvard.edu.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2019). Motivation and the Unconscious. In: Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., Ryan, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28379-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28380-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)