8. MOTIVATIONAL THEORY OF CHANGE. The motivation to accept change falls somewhere between the behaviorists' approaches and the aggression theories. Korman (1974) argued that in American society people must do at least three things if they are to live their lives effectively. First, they must achieve on tasks, whatever those tasks might be. Second, people must be able to keep interpersonal conflict and aggression toward others under sufficient control so that such behavior will not become debilitating and consume so much time and effort that personal goals cannot be achieved. Third, people must possess the capacity to be creative and change if the environment calls for it. This last condition is important in today's dynamic society because of the exponential rates of change people face. Korman (1974) maintained that an integrated theory of motivational processes of change contain these three components: 1. Motivational processes are a function of the drive to be consistent with belief systems about the nature of the self, others, and the world. 2. Belief systems leading to differing levels of achievement, creativity, and aggression are a function of and develop in the same environments. 3. Changing environments in certain directions specified by the theoretical model will result in changes in achievement, creativity, and aggression (p. 226). Korman believed that humans are motivated first, to achieve outcomes that are consistent with their evaluative beliefs about themselves, and their evaluative beliefs about others, and the degree to which they believe that there is one set of values to guide behavior in this world. Second, humans learn about themselves, others, and the world as a function of the actual and symbolically stated opinions of others. Thus, holding other learning experiences about the self and others constant, the more the individual human being interacts with a world that encourages a certain system of beliefs about the self, others, and the world, the more these beliefs become part of the individual. The motivation to change becomes a function of three different facets of a human being's life experience (Korman, 1974, p. 228). The more these three are integrated together in an effective manner, the more successful the individual will be in living his or her life. Festinger (1954) supported this position by maintaining that humans are motivated to learn about self and others and establish a socially real world. He wrote that in a world of social behavior, since there is no physical reality, the only way for a person to establish a system of evaluative beliefs about the self and others and the variability of the world is to interact with others, both overtly and symbolically. He made the following predictions: 1. People of high self-perceived competence and positive self-image should be more likely to achieve on task performance than those who have low self-perceived competence, low success expectancy and low self-image concerning the task or job at hand. Since such differential task achievement would be consistent with self-cognitions, people view task performance as valuable. 2. People who have beliefs that there is one set of rules to guide behavior in this world and that there is one way of looking at the world are more likely to be opposed to creative change, change in general, and to those people or things that are different or constitute a change from themselves, since such change would be inconsistent with their belief systems. 3. People who have beliefs that people, in general, are not desirable, cannot be trusted, and must be controlled by threats and punishments are more likely to develop aggressiveness toward others and are more likely to engage in generally hostile interpersonal behavior, since such types of behavior would be consistent with their belief systems about people (p. 290). There is considerable research to support the findings of Korman and Festinger. Erlich and Lee (1969) and Torcivia and Rokeach (1968) found that dogmatism in people is negatively correlated with the ability to learn new beliefs. Restle, Andrews, and Rokeach (1964) proposed that highly dogmatic individuals are more likely to learn problems involving the simple following of authority, while low dogmatists are more likely to do well on problems involving the learning of new principles. Druckman (1967) found in people a resistance to compromise with the other side during collective bargaining (simulated) and the tendency to use unilateral planning (as opposed to bilateral discussion) is positively correlated with dogmatism scores. Eckhardt and Newcombe (1969) discovered that dogmatism loads heavily on the same factor with authoritarianism and a belief in militarism and an aggressive foreign policy. Fillenbaum and Jackman (1961) found that dogmatism is negatively related to the likelihood of rejecting standard operating procedures and developing new procedures into a working system. Vacchiano et al (1969) showed that dogmatism is negatively related to looking for new approaches in music, art, and films. In a separate study, the same team found that dogmatism is negatively related to acceptance of liturgical change among Catholics and acceptance of technological change in the factory. Lastly, Berkowitz (1962), in studying Europe before the second world war, found that dogmatism is positively correlated with dislike of dissimilar religions. It is clear that dogmatism adversely affects the motivation to change when new and dynamic situations are presented to the individual. Environment often affects how individuals adapt. The following studies showed that environment does have a significant effect on how effectively the individual accepts change in his/her life. Domino (1969) found that mothers of creative high-school males valued autonomy and independence, preferred change and lack of structure, and exhibited great self assurance. The mothers of a control group scored lower on all these variables. Adams (1968) found that the creation of an experimental atmosphere with decreased evaluation by others and perception of control and evaluation by others resulted in higher scores on tests of creative thinking. Buetzkow (1965) discovered that innovativeness in organizations is negatively related to hierarchical centralization of authority and positively related to lack of programming and rule orientation. Regarding change in an environment, Coch and French (1948) studied how, in a decreasing hierarchy with external controls and task specialization, a "change" program increased receptivity to the goals of the "change." Strain, Unikel, and Adams (1969) found that middle- class subjects were more likely to engage in alternative behavior than those from lower-class backgrounds. Their contention was that middle class environments were discovered to be generally less hierarchical than the lower class. Korman (1970) showed that individuals in college environments where hierarchical control, programming, and specialization have been de-emphasized are more likely to accept continuing changes in the university and its functioning. Korman (1963) and Sutton and Porter (1968) found that individuals in specialized roles and occupations were more likely not to sympathize with people different from themselves and were less likely to communicate with such different individuals on an informal basis. Related to creativity, Maier and Hoffman (1961) showed that individuals who were employed in hierarchical organizations do more poorly on creative tasks than those who have not been employed by such organizations. Hoffman, Harburg, and Maier (1962) discovered the correlation between creativity and an individual's position related to his or her supervisor. In a less hierarchical system, creativity was fostered in individuals who were not subjected to the control of their supervisors. In studying group behavior, Ziller, Behringer, and Goldstein (1962) discovered that groups which experience changes in membership were more creative than those that were stable. Steiner (1965) showed that organizations that hire unusual, different types of people, were more likely to be creative organizations. Watson (1960) and Getzels and Jackson (1962) found that creative children come from homes (a) marked by a lack of parental dominance and structures, and (b) where individual divergence was permitted and risk accepted. From these studies, environment can be seen to be a major factor in affecting how an individual develops within the context of his or her society.