Emerging Trends and Future Directions for the Field of Motivation Psychology: A Special Issue in Honor of Prof. Dr. Willy Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue is devoted to Prof. Dr. W. Lens, who passed away end of August 2014 while he was vacationing. The special issue is meant to honor Willy's intellectual contribution to the field of motivation psychology and his enthusiastic and devoted mentorship, which has spurred many of us to study motivation-related topics. In line with Willy's interest and extensive network, the special issue brings together scholars from diverse theoretical perspectives (i.e., Achievement Goal Theory, Future Time Perspective Theory, and Self-Determination Theory) and diverse cultural backgrounds (i.e., China, Peru, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, US, Australia, Canada). We introduce the special issue by highlighting four emerging trends that characterize contemporary motivation psychology and that were central to Willy's work: (a) multiperspectivism (i.e., a reliance on multiple motivational frameworks); (b) the diversity of motives and goals that underlie behavior (i.e., motivational heterogeneity); (c) interest in motives for non-participation; and (d) the issue of universalism versus relativism (i.e., the question whether there exist universal motivational processes or whether these processes are contingent upon sociodemographic, personality-based, and contextual factors). Each of the eight contributions in the special issue touch upon one or more of these emerging themes, which are critically discussed in conjunction with a number of directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".