Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T15:25:08.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resurrecting the “black-box” conundrum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

Patricia A. Alexander Open the ORCID record for Patricia A. Alexander [Opens in a new window]
Patricia A. Alexander*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA palexand@umd.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their article, Murayama and Jach contend that a mental computational model demonstrates that high-level motivations are emergent properties from underlying cognitive processes rather than instigators of behaviors. Despite points of agreement with the authors' critiques of the motivation literature, I argue that their claim of dismantling the black box of the human mind has been constructed on shaking grounds.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e26
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, P. A. (2013). In praise of (reasoned and reasonable) speculation: A response to Robinson et al.'s moratorium on recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9234-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. A. (2024). Hybridizing psychological theories: Weighing the ends against the means. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09856-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. A., & Baggetta, P. (2014). Percept-concept coupling and human error. In Rapp, D. N. & Baasch, J. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 297–327). MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. A., Grossnickle, E. M., & List, A. (2014). Navigating the labyrinth of teacher motivations and emotions. In Richardson, P., Karabenick, S. & Watt, H. (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 150–163). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. M., & Rice, L. N. (1963). Audience, self-actualization, and drive theory. In Wepman, J. M. & Heine, R. W. (Eds.), Concepts of personality (pp. 79–110). Aldine Publishing Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11175-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, S. (2001). Perception and action: Alternative views. Synthese, 129, 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012643006930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. B., & Fryer, L. K. (2024). Hybridizing motivational strains: How integrative models are crucial for advancing motivation science. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09850-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Multiple goals, multiple contexts: The dynamic interplay between personal goals and contextual goal stresses. In Volet, S. & Järvelä, S. (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 251–269). Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration at motivation terminology. [Special Issue]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pekrun, R. (2023). Jingle-jangle fallacies in motivation science: Toward a definition of core motivation. In Bong, M., Reeve, J. & Kim, S. (Eds.), Motivation science: Controversies and insights (pp. 52–58). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197662359.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist, 44(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.1.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, E. A. (2023). Four guideposts toward an integrated model of academic motivation: Motivational resilience, academic identity, complex social ecologies, and development. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09790-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, P. M., Shadish, W. R., & Sullivan, K. J. (2023). Frameworks for causal inference in psychological science. In Cooper, H., Coutanche, M. N., McMullen, L. M., Panter, A. T., Rindskopf, D. & Sher, K. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (2nd ed., pp. 23–56). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000318-002Google Scholar
Van Meter, P. N. (2020). Commentary: Measurement and the study of motivation and strategy use: Determining if and when self-report measures are appropriate. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 174–184. https://doi.10.14786/flr.v8i3.631CrossRefGoogle Scholar