arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Response to the critiques (and encouragements) on our critique of motivation constructs

Kou Murayama & Hayley Jach

Behavioral and Brain Sciences2025https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x24001353article
AJG 4
Weight
0.41

What the paper says

The target article argued that motivation constructs are treated as black boxes and called for work that specifies the mental computational processes underlying motivated behavior. In response to critical commentaries, we clarify our philosophical standpoint, elaborate on the meaning of mental computational processes and why past work was not sufficient, and discuss the opportunities to expand the scope of the framework.

2 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x24001353

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kou2025,
  title        = {{Response to the critiques (and encouragements) on our critique of motivation constructs}},
  author       = {Kou Murayama & Hayley Jach},
  journal      = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x24001353},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Response to the critiques (and encouragements) on our critique of motivation constructs

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.