Discrepancy and the affective processes a critique of professor Stagner's theory of motivation

Motivation is a process of energy mobilization that occurs in varying degrees and that becomes integrated into specific goal-directed patterns called motives. Physiological homeostasis is a process of maintaining steady states within the body fluids. If there is a departure from a relatively stable state, behavior becomes directed toward a goal that restores stability. The concept of homeostasis can be extended to include the maintaining of equilibria within the dynamic relations between organism and environment. This extension makes it possible to describe social motives and motivations within personality as the removal of discrepancies to restore O-E equilibria. A limitation of the discrepancy theory, however, is that it does not adequately take account of the role of affective processes in motivation and development. Affective arousals are both activating and regulating. They are basic factors in reinforcement and the organization of goal-oriented behavior. Therefore, two dimensions of energy mobilization are required to give an adequate account of motivation and development: activation and the hedonic dimension. The distinction between cognitive and affective processes has an objective neuropsychological basis.     

Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information

The degree of metric determinancy afforded by nonmetric multidimensional scaling was investigated as a function of the number of points being scaled, the true dimensionality of the data being scaled, and the amount of error contained in the data being scaled. It was found 1) that if the ratio of the degrees of freedom of the data to that of the coordinates is sufficiently large then metric information is recovered even when random error is present; and 2) when the number of points being scaled increases the stress of the solution increases even though the degree of metric determinacy increases.This report was supported in part by a PHS research grant No. M-10006 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, and in part by a Science Development grant No. GU-2059, from the National Science Foundation. The author is indebted to Charles R. Sherman for his assistance in gathering the data and for his critical re-writing of sections of this report. The assistance of Lyle V. Jones in his critical readings and comments is also deeply appreciated.