The Role of Motivation in Complex Problem Solving

Abstract

Previous research on Complex Problem Solving (CPS) has primarily focused on cognitive factors as outlined below. The current paper discusses the role of motivation during CPS and argues that motivation, emotion, and cognition interact and cannot be studied in an isolated manner. Motivation is the process that determines the energization and direction of behavior (Heckhausen, 1991). Three motivation theories and their relation to CPS are examined: McClelland’s achievement motivation, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and Dörner’s needs as outlined in PSI-theory.

Full text

OPINION
published: 23 May 2017
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00851
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 851
Edited by:
Joachim Funke,
Heidelberg University, Germany
Reviewed by:
Christine Blech,
FernUniversität Hagen, Germany
Ricarda Steinmayr,
Technische Universität Dortmund,
Germany
*Correspondence:
C. Dominik Güss
dguess@unf.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Cognitive Science,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 16 March 2017
Accepted: 09 May 2017
Published: 23 May 2017
Citation:
Güss CD, Burger ML and Dörner D
(2017) The Role of Motivation in
Complex Problem Solving.
Front. Psychol. 8:851.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00851
The Role of Motivation in Complex
Problem Solving
C. Dominik Güss 1*, Madison Lee Burger 1and Dietrich Dörner 2
1Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States, 2Trimberg Research Academy,
University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
Keywords: complex problem solving, dynamic decision making, simulation, motivation, PSI-theory, Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, achievement motivation
THE ROLE OF MOTIVATION IN COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING
Previous research on Complex Problem Solving (CPS) has primarily focused on cognitive factors
as outlined below. The current paper discusses the role of motivation during CPS and argues
that motivation, emotion, and cognition interact and cannot be studied in an isolated manner.
Motivation is the process that determines the energization and direction of behavior (Heckhausen,
1991).
Three motivation theories and their relation to CPS are examined: McClelland’s achievement
motivation, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and Dörner’s needs as outlined in PSI-theory. We chose
these three theories for several reasons. First, space forces us to be selective. Second, the three
theories are among the most prominent motivational theories. Finally, they are need theories
postulating several motivations and not just one. A thinking-aloud protocol is provided to illustrate
the role of motivational and cognitive dynamics in CPS.
Problems are part of all the domains of human life. The field of CPS investigates problems that
are complex, dynamic, and non-transparent (Dörner, 1996). Complex problems consist of many
interactively interrelated variables. Dynamic ones change and develop further over time, regardless
of whether the involved people take action. And non-transparent problems have many aspects of
the problem situation that are unclear or unknown to the involved people.
CPS researchers focus exactly on such kinds of problems. Under a narrow perspective, CPS
can be defined as thinking that aims to overcome barriers and to reach goals in situations that
are complex, dynamic, and non-transparent (Frensch and Funke, 1995). Indeed, past research has
shown the influential role of task properties (Berry and Broadbent, 1984; Funke, 1985) and of
cognitive factors on CPS strategies and performance, such as intelligence (e.g., Süß, 2001; Stadler
et al., 2015), domain-specific knowledge (e.g., Wenke et al., 2005), cognitive biases and errors (e.g.,
Dörner, 1996; Güss et al., 2015), or self-reflection (e.g., Donovan et al., 2015).
Under a broader perspective, CPS can be defined as the study of cognitive, emotional,
motivational, and social processes when people are confronted with such complex, dynamic and
non-transparent problem situations (Schoppek and Putz-Osterloh, 2003; Dörner and Güss, 2011,
2013; Funke, 2012). The assumption here is that focusing solely on cognitive processes reveals an
incomplete picture or an inaccurate one.
To study CPS, researchers have often used computer-simulated problem scenarios also
called microworlds or virtual environments or strategy games. In these situations, participants
are confronted with a complex problem simulated on the computer from which they gather
information, and identify solutions. These decisions are then implemented into the system and
result in changes to the problem situation.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION AND CPS
The idea to study the interaction of motivation, emotion, and cognition is not new (Simon, 1967).
However, in practice this has been rarely examined in the field of CPS. One study assessed the need

Güss et al. The Role of Motivation in Complex Problem Solving
for cognition (i.e., the tendency to engage in thinking and
reflecting) and showed how high need of cognition was related
to broader information collection and better performance in a
management simulation (Nair and Ramnarayan, 2000).
Vollmeyer and Rheinberg (1999, 2000) explored in two studies
the role of motivational factors in CPS. They assessed mastery
confidence (similar to self-efficacy), incompetence fear, interest,
and challenge as motivational factors. Their results demonstrated
that mastery confidence and incompetence fear were good
predictors for learning and for knowledge acquisition.
CPS ASSESSMENT
Before we describe three theories of motivation and how they
might be related and applicable to CPS, we will briefly describe
the WINFIRE computer simulation (Gerdes et al., 1993; Schaub,
2009) and provide a part of a thinking-aloud protocol of
one participant while working on WINFIRE. WINFIRE is the
simulation of small cities surrounded by forests. Participants take
the role of fire-fighting commanders who try to protect cities and
forests from approaching fires. Participants can give a series of
commands to several fire trucks and helicopters. In WINFIRE
quick decisions and multitasking are required in order to avoid
fires spreading. In one study, participants were also instructed
to think aloud, i.e., to say aloud everything that went through
their minds while working on WINFIRE. These thinking-aloud
protocols, also called verbal protocols, were audiotaped and
transcribed in five countries and compared (see Güss et al., 2010).
The following is a verbatim WINFIRE thinking-aloud
protocol of a US participant (Güss et al., 2010):
Ok, I don’t see any fires yet. I’m trying to figure out how the
helicopters pick up the water from the ponds. I put helicopters on
patrol mode. Not really sure what that does. It doesn’t seem to be
moving. Oh, there it goes, it’s moving... I guess you have to wait
till there’s a fire showing... Ok, fire just started in the middle, so I
have to get some people to extinguish it. Ok, now I have another fire
going here. I’m in trouble here. Ok. Ok, when I click extinguish, it
don’t seem to respond. Guess I’m not clear how to get trucks right to
the fire. Ok, one fire has been extinguished, but a new one started
in the same area. I’m getting more trucks out there trying to figure
out, how to get helicopters to the pond. I still haven’t figured that
out, because they have to pick up the water. Ok, got a pretty good
fire going here, so I’m going to put all the trucks on action, ok, water
thing is making me mad. Ok. I’m not sure how it goes? Ok, the forest
is burning up now—extinguish! Ok, ok, I’m in big trouble here...
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF
MOTIVATION AND THEIR APPLICATION TO
CPS
McClelland’s Human Motivation Theory
In his Human Motivation theory, McClelland distinguishes three
needs (power, affiliation, and achievement) and argues that
human motivation is a response to changes in affective states. A
specific situation will cause a change in the affective state through
the non-specific response of the autonomic nervous system.
This response will motivate a person toward a goal to reach a
different affective state (McClelland et al., 1953). An affective state
may either be positive or negative, determining the direction of
motivated behavior as either approach oriented, i.e., to maintain
the state, or avoidance oriented, i.e., to avoid or discontinue the
state (McClelland et al., 1953).
Motivation intensity varies among individuals based on
perception of the stimulus and the adaptive abilities of
the individual. Hence, when a discrepancy exists between
expectation and perception, then a person will be motivated
to eliminate this discrepancy (McClelland et al., 1953). In the
statement from the thinking-aloud protocol we can infer the
participant’s achievement motivation, “Guess I’m not clear how to
get trucks right to the fire. Ok, one fire has been extinguished, but a
new one started in the same area.” The participant at first begins
to give up and reduce effort, but then achieves a step toward the
goal. This achievement causes the reevaluation of the discrepancy
between ability and the goal as not too large to overcome.
This realization motivates the participant to continue working
through the scenario. Whereas, the need for achievement seems
to guide CPS, the needs for power and affiliation cannot be
observed in the current thinking-aloud protocol.
Based on the previous discussion we can derive the following
predictions:
Prediction 1: Approach-orientation will lead to greater
engagement in CPS compared to avoidance-orientation.
Prediction 2: Based on an individual’s experience either power,
affiliation, or achievement will become dominant and guide
the strategic approach in CPS.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943, 1954) suggests that
everyone has five basic needs that act as motivating forces in a
person’s life. Maslow’s hierarchy takes the form of a pyramid in
which needs lower in the pyramid are primary motivators. They
have to be met before higher needs can become motivating forces.
At the bottom of the pyramid are the most basic needs beginning
with physiological needs, such as hunger, and followed by safety
needs. Then follow the psychological needs of belongingness and
love, and then esteem. Once these four groups of needs have
been met, a person may reach the self-fulfillment stage of self-
actualization at which time a person can be motivated to achieve
ones full potential (Maslow, 1943).
The first four groups of needs are external motivators because
they motivate through both deficiency and fulfillment. In essence,
a person fulfills a need which then releases the next unsatisfied
need to be the dominant motivator (Maslow, 1943, 1954). The
safety need is often understood as seeking shelter, but Maslow
also understands safety also as wanting “a predictable, orderly
world” (Maslow, 1943, p. 377), “an organized world rather than
an unorganized or unstructured one” (Maslow, 1943, p. 377).
Safety refers to the “common preference for familiar rather than
unfamiliar things” (Maslow, 1943, p. 379).
In this sense the safety need becomes active when the person
does not understand what is happening in the microworld, as
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 851

Güss et al. The Role of Motivation in Complex Problem Solving
the following passage of the thinking-aloud protocol illustrates.
“I put helicopters on patrol mode. Not really sure what that does. It
doesn’t seem to be moving.” The safety need is demonstrated in the
person’s desire for organization, since unknown and unexpected
events are seen as threats to safety.
The esteem need as a motivator becomes evident through the
statement, “Guess I’m not clear how to get trucks right to the
fire.” The participant becomes aware of his inability to control
the situation which affects his self-esteem. The esteem need
is never fulfilled in the described situation and remains the
primary motivator. The following statements show how affected
the participant’s esteem need is by the inability to control the
burning fires. “Ok. I’m not sure how it goes? Ok, the forest is
burning up now—extinguish! Ok, ok, I’m in big trouble.”
Prediction 3: A strong safety need will be related to elaborate
and detailed information collection in CPS compared to low
safety need.
Prediction 4: People with high esteem needs will be affected
more by difficulties in CPS and engage more often in behaviors
to protect their esteem compared to people with low esteem
needs.
Dörner’s Theory of Motivation as Part of
PSI-Theory
PSI-theory described the interaction of cognitive, emotional, and
motivational processes (Dörner, 2003; Dörner and Güss, 2011).
Only a small part of the theory is examined here. Briefly, the
theory encompasses five basic human needs: the existential needs
(thirst, hunger, and pain avoidance), the sexuality need, and the
social need for affiliation (group binding), the need for certainty
(predictability), and the need for competence (mastery). If the
environment is unpredictable, the certainty need becomes active.
If we are not able to cope with problems, the competence need
becomes active. The need for competence also becomes active
when any other need becomes activated. With an increase in
needs, the arousal increases.
The first three needs cannot be observed or inferred from the
thinking-aloud protocol provided. Statements like, “I’m trying to
figure out how the helicopters pick up the water from the ponds.”
and “Guess I’m not clear how to get trucks right to the fire,”
demonstrate the needs for certainty and competence, i.e., to make
the environment predictable and controllable.
The following statements reflect the participant’s need for
competence, i.e., the inefficacy or incapability of coping with
problems. “I’m in trouble here... ok, water thing is making me
mad.” Not being able to extinguish the fires that are approaching
cities and are destroying forests is experienced as anger. The
arousal rises as the resolution level of thinking decreases. So,
the participant does not think about different options in an
elaborate manner. Yet, the participant becomes aware of his
failure. The competence need then causes the participant to
search for possible solutions, “I still haven’t figured that out
because they have to pick up the water...” The need for competence
is satisfied when the problem solver is able to change either the
environment or ones views of the environment.
Prediction 5: A strong certainty need is positively related to a
strong competence need.
Prediction 6: High need for certainty paired with high need
for competence can lead to safeguarding behavior, i.e.,
background monitoring.
Prediction 7: An increase in the competence and uncertainty
needs leads to increased arousal and a lower resolution level
of thinking. CPS becomes one-dimensional and possible long-
term and side-effects are not considered adequately.
Summary and Evaluation
We have briefly discussed three motivation theories and their
relation to CPS referring to one thinking-aloud protocol:
McClelland’s achievement motivation, Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs, and Dörner’s needs as outlined in PSI-theory.
A Comparison of Three Need Theories in the Context of CPS.
McClelland’s
achievement
motivation
Maslow’s
hierarchy of
need
Dörner’s theory
of motivation as
part of
PSI-theory
Scope/ Breadth + ++ ++
Applicability to
CPS
+ + ++
Adaptability of
needs
− − +
Incorporation of
emotion
++ − ++
Individual
differences
++ − ++
Evaluation criteria: very small/very low −, small/low −,
much/high +, very much/very high ++.
Comparing the scope of the three theories and referring to
the scope and different needs covered in the three theories,
McClelland’s theory describes three needs (power, affiliation,
and achievement), Maslow’s theory describes five groups of
needs (physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, self-
actualization), and Dörner’s theory describes five different needs
(existential, sexuality, affiliation, certainty, and competence).
All three theories can be applied to CPS. McClelland’s need for
achievement, Maslow’s needs for esteem and safety, and Dörner’s
needs for certainty and competence could be inferred from the
thinking–aloud passage. The need for affiliation which is a part
of each of the three theories could play an important role when
groups solve complex problems.
The existential needs and the need for affiliation outlined in
PSI-theory can also be found in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
These two theories differ in the adaptability of the needs.
However, Maslow’s esteem needs are only activated as the
primary motivator as the physiological needs, belongingness,
and love needs are met. The needs are more fluidly described
as motivators in PSI-theory. One need becomes the dominant
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 851

Güss et al. The Role of Motivation in Complex Problem Solving
motive according to the expectancy–value principle. Expectancy
stands for the estimated likelihood of success. The value of
a motive stands for the strength of the need. According to
McClelland’s theory, the role of three motivations develops
through life experience in a specific culture; and often times,
one of the three becomes the main driving force for a person,
almost like a personality trait. In that sense, there is not much
flexibility.
Motivation and emotion are closely related as became partially
clear in the discussion of McClelland’s theory. Emotions are
discussed in detail in PSI-theory, but space does not allow us to
discuss those in detail here (see Dörner, 2003). Emotions are not
described in detail in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Individual differences in motivation and needs are discussed
in two of the three theories. According to McClelland, a person
develops an individual achievement motive by learning one’s
own abilities from past achievements and failures. Based on
different learning histories, different persons will have a different
dominant motivation guiding behavior in a given situation.
Learning history also influences the competence need in PSI-
theory. Additionally PSI-theory assumes individual differences
that are simulated through different individual motivational
parameters in the theory. The certainty need, for example,
becomes active when there is a deviation from a given set point.
Individual differences are related to different set points and how
sensitive the deviations are (e.g., deviation starts quickly vs.
deviation starts slowly).
CONCLUSION
The thinking-aloud example from the WINFIRE microworld
described earlier demonstrates that a person’s CPS process
is influenced by the person’s needs. We have focused in
our discussion on motivational processes that are considered
in the framework of need theories. Beyond that, other
motivational theories exist that focus on the importance of
motivation for learning and achievement (e.g., expectancy,
reasons for engagement, see Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Thus, the
applicability of these theories to CPS could be explored in future
studies as well.
We discussed the three motivational theories of McClelland’s
Achievement Motivation, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and
Dörner’s Theory of Motivation as part of PSI-Theory. Although,
the theories differ our discussion has shown that the three
theories can be applied to CPS. Problem solving is a
motivated process and determined by human motivations and
needs.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The first author CG conceptualized the manuscript,
selected the thinking-aloud passage, the second author
MB primarily summarized McClellands and Maslow’s
theories. All authors contributed to writing up the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Berry, D. C., and Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task
performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36A,
209–231. doi: 10.1080/14640748408402156
Donovan, S., Güss, C. D., and Naslund, D. (2015). Improving dynamic decision
making through training and self-reflection. Judgm. Decis. Making 10, 284–295.
Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure.Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex
Situations. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dörner, D. (2003). Bauplan für eine Seele [Blueprint for a soul]. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Dörner, D., and Güss, C. D. (2011). A psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler’s
decision making as Commander in Chief: summa confidentia et nimius metus.
Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15, 37–49. doi: 10.1037/a0022375
Dörner, D., and Güss, C. D. (2013). PSI: a computational architecture
of cognition, motivation, and emotion. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17, 297–317.
doi: 10.1037/a0032947
Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev sych.53.100901.
135153
Frensch, P., and Funke, J. (eds.) (1995). Complex Problem Solving: The European
Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Funke, J. (1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch Aufbau und Anwendung
subjektiver Kausalmodelle [Control of dynamic systems via Construction
and Application of subjective causal models]. Zeitschrift für Psychol. 193,
443–465.
Funke, J. (2012). “Complex problem solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of
Learning, ed N. M. Seel (Heidelberg: Springer), 682–685.
Gerdes, J., Dörner, D., and Pfeiffer, E. (1993). Interaktive Computersimulation
“Winfire.” [The Interactive Computer Simulation “Winfire”]. Otto-Friedrich-
Universität Bamberg: Lehrstuhl Psychologie, II.
Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., and Gerhard, C. (2010). Cross-national comparisons of
complex problem-solving strategies in two microworlds. Cogn. Sci. 34, 489–520.
doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01087.x
Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., and Orduña, L. V. (2015). Strategies, tactics,
and errors in dynamic decision making. J. Dyn. Decis. Making 1, 1–14.
doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.13131
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and Action. New York, NY: Springer.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396.
doi: 10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. (1953). The
Achievement Motive. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nair, K. U., and Ramnarayan, S. (2000). Individual differences in need
for cognition and complex problem solving. J. Res. Pers. 34, 305–328.
doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1999.2274
Schaub, H. (2009). Fire Simulation. Ottobrunn: IABG.
Schoppek, W., and Putz-Osterloh, W. (2003). Individuelle Unterschiede
und die Bearbeitung komplexer Probleme. Zeitschrift für Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychol. 24, 163–173. doi: 10.1024/0170-1789.24.
3.163
Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychol.
Rev. 74, 29–39. doi: 10.1037/h0024127
Süß, H.-M. (2001). “Die Rolle von Intelligenz und Wissen für erfolgreiches
Handeln in komplexen Problemsituationen [The role of intelligence and
knowledge for successful performance in complex problem solving],” in
Komplexität und Kompetenz: Ausgewählte Fragen der Kompetenzforschung, ed
G. Franke (Bielefeld: Bertelsmann), 249–275.
Stadler, M., Becker, N., Gödker, M., Leutner, D., and Greiff, S. (2015). Complex
problem solving and intelligence: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 53, 92–101.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.005
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 851

Güss et al. The Role of Motivation in Complex Problem Solving
Vollmeyer, R., and Rheinberg, F. (1999). Motivation and metacognition
when learning a complex system. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 14, 541–554.
doi: 10.1007/BF03172978
Vollmeyer, R., and Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance
via persistence? Learn. Instruct. 10, 293–309. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(99)
00031-6
Wenke, D., Frensch, P. A., and Funke, J. (2005). “Complex problem solving
and intelligence: empirical relation and causal direction,” in Cognition and
Intelligence: Identifying the Mechanisms of the Mind, eds R. J. Sternberg and
J. E. Pretz (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 160–187.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2017 Güss, Burger and Dörner. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5May 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 851