Cited by 110Human Behavior and MotivationBehavioral Health and InterventionsPsychological Testing and Assessment

On motivational readiness.

Kruglanski, Arie W., Chernikova, Marina, Rosenzweig, Emily, Kopetz, Catalina·2014·Psychological Review

Abstract

The construct of motivational readiness is introduced and explored. Motivational readiness is the willingness or inclination, whether or not ultimately realized, to act in the service of a desire. Building on prior relevant conceptions that include, among others, animal learning models (Hull, 1943; Spence, 1956; Tolman, 1955) and personality approaches (e.g., Atkinson, 1964; Lewin, 1935), a general theory of motivational readiness is presented. Major parameters of this theory include the magnitude of a Want state (i.e., individual's desire of some sort) and the Expectancy of being able to satisfy it. The Want is assumed to be the essential driver of readiness: Whereas some degree of readiness may exist in the absence of Expectancy, all readiness is abolished in the absence of desire (Want). The concept of incentive is conceptualized in terms of a Match between the contents of the Want and perceived situational affordances. Whereas in classic models incentive was portrayed as a first-order determinant of motivational readiness, it is depicted here as a second-order factor that affects readiness via its impact on the Want and/or the Expectancy. A heterogeneous body of evidence for the present theory is reviewed, converging from different domains of psychological research. The theory's relation to its predecessors and its unique implications for new research hypotheses are also discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0037013

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Incentive salience may proactively facilitate action and engagement.

    “Thus incentive salience may proactively facilitate action and engagement (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Carver, 2009; Kruglanski et al., 2014).”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Kruglanski et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., Rosenzweig, E., & Kopetz, C.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2014-07
Volume
121
Issue
3
Pages
367-388
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2321215903
Cited by
110
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7
FWCI
12.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Behavior and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
motivational readiness, desire, expectancy, incentives, situational affordances, personality theory, motivation theories
MeSH terms
Humans, Motivation, Psychological Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review