Abstract
We argue that the target article's computational/reductionistic approach to motivation is insufficient to explain the energization of human behavior, because such explanation requires broad consideration of "what people are trying to do." We illustrate what is gained by retaining (rather than jettisoning) higher-order motivation constructs and show that the authors' approach assumes, but fails to name, such constructs.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e44 |
| Journal | The Behavioral and brain sciences |
| Volume | 48 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 31 Jan 2025 |