{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03355868036776636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013872363439697133, 'mean_word_length': 5.16966966966967, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF CONSUMER MOTIVATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Consumer motivation has been known long as a marketing concept. However, most of its concepts belong to other fields, and there is little effort to define and model them. This study aims to redefine it and develop its model. Therefore, the author narrates the history of consumer motivation and critically offers its new definition and its loose and unstructured model through which the more specific models can depart. This study found that the motivation theory goes into a more diverse direction caused by the distinctive nature of consumer behavior nature and context. For that reason, the consumer motivation model should give the spaces in which a specific model for particular behavior can be developed. The study’s loose and unstructured model is found as able to take that function. Further studies can utilize this model in studying motivation to perform or not perform particular consumption behavior in a specific context.


Introduction
The concept of motivation may is as old as the civilization itself. This word or its equivalent almost exists in every language or culture. However, its conceptualization and use in the economy are absent until the second part of the twentieth century, when scholars began developing economic principles of limited resources optimization. The motivation concepts grew in many fields in its development, where they are required (Graham & Weiner, 1996), such as in psychology, economy, management, and sociology.
Initially, needs theories appeared as the dominant motivation theory. Hull's drive theory (Graham & Weiner, 1996;Lambert, 2018), Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Graham & Weiner, 1996;McLeod, 2020), and McCleland's (1961) need trio are the prominent theories, and the first is the most prominent one. The second wave of classic views took expectancy as the source of motivation. They have the root in Lewin's field theory (Graham & Weiner, 1996;Patnoe, 1988). These theories rely on the belief that behavior can generate positive outcomes or hinder negative ones.
Motivational theories do not stop evolving with the emergence of these classical theories. Some midrange and small concepts unfold until now amid the stable popularity of those classic theories. Hence, motivation theories move to a more scattered posture, making the present general motivation theory look like a utopia.
The concept of motivation usually grew according to the field uniqueness where it is used (Graham and Weiner, 1996). Consumer behavior is a field where it functions heavily. Therefore, the question is, how is the concept's development in this field? With the fast development of internet technology, how is the concept's future appearance? Should we wait for the general theory of consumer motivation or let it evolves scattered? This study aims to answer these questions. More specifically, the objective of this study is to explain the brief history of consumer motivation. Second, to clarify consumer motivation theories' development amid the internet era to verify whether they move into a more unified or scattered way. This study also pays attention to the future development of consumer motivation.
The conceptualization of consumer motivations has on track since the 1960s. In 1962, Stern proposed the importance of impulse in stimulating consumer behavior. Van Raaij and Wandwossen (1978) promoted the unmet needs as the basis of consumer motivation and to predict generic choice. Beatty and Ferrell (2004) referred to impulse response to model consumer behavior. Pincus (2004) promoted back the unmet needs theory. In short, those studies were commonly inconclusive and tended to focus on a particular concept in explaining consumer motivation. We can also witness little effort to continue those works despite the fast growth of technology development and more volatile consumer loyalty. Therefore the holistic and comprehensive approach to these issues is the original contribution of this study. The practical world can benefit from the study's findings by utilizing particular motivational concepts required by specific circumstances. Academically, these holistic and comprehensive reviews can also enable researchers to expand their research domain.

Methods
Based on Stratton's (2019) classification, the author utilizes the narrative review focused on frames of thought regarding the literature on consumer motivation. It includes a critical review of the concept's theoretical development ended with the author's perspective about the definition and model of consumer motivation with current development in mind. Graham and Weiner (1996) categorized motivation theories into two significant categories: broad theories and contemporary theories. Broad theories consist of Hull's drive theory, Lewin's field theory, Atkinson's achievement striving theories, Rotter's social learning theory, and attribution theory proposed by many researchers. Contemporary motivation constructs are connected with achievement striving. This theory stream consists of self-worth, self-efficacy, and helplessness beliefs. The remaining construct deals with goal achievement's cognitive and affective consequences: task vs. ego involvement, intrinsic vs. extrinsic incentives, and cooperative versus competitive goal structures. Anticipated emotions (Baumeister et al., 2007;Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001) and others' anticipated emotions proposed in this research are part of affective consequences of goal achievement.

Hull's Drive Theory of Motivation
Drive theory postulates that the emergence of motivation started from the occurrence of physiological deficiency or need. The need creates a state of physiological or psychological tensions that drive or energize individuals to action. This energy has no direction yet in terms of what behavior should be undertaken to fulfill needs. This direction is given by the learning or cognitive process. Learning teaches individuals which behavior is the most suitable one to reduce tensions. When they have no experience yet, individuals can utilize the cognitive process to decide which behavior is the most proper to execute (Graham & Weiner, 1996;Lambert, 2018).
Hull's drive theory states that the mechanism of behavior stimulation is not entirely mathematical, as shown by its formula. In additive behavior, in which the individual has a powerful habit and almost cannot say no for doing an action (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2012), the presence of motivation is not required to initiate behavior. The theory showed its flourishing in the 1940s and 1950s. This theory may explain primary-needsrelated rationale but fails to give the reasons to come behaviors, such as the so-called goal-directed behavior (Graham & Weiner, 1996).

Maslow's Hierarchy of Motivation
Maslow's theory stratifies human needs into file levels of needs, visualized as a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid lies physiological needs that consist of biological and physiological needs, such as food, clothing, water, and accommodation, required for a living. One cannot live life without these basic needs. Up one level is the security need or need for safety and freedom from threats. The third layer consists of social needs fulfilled by individuals or social groups with which an individual is related or into which he or she belongs. Self-esteem is a need found in the fourth layer with which an individual can get the appreciation or prestige required to develop self-image. Self-actualization perches at the peak of the pyramid. It consists of activating the un-utilized potentials and achieving peak performance and growth (Graham & Weiner, 1996;McLeod, 2020).
This theory states that the priority of needs is different for different persons. For example, an individual may prioritize social needs, and another may care more about self-esteem endeavors. However, the more basic needs, such as physiological and security, should have been fulfilled first (McLeod, 2020).
There many more specific theory of needs follows this theory. The most prominent one is the trio of needs theory (McCleland, 1961). It aims to explain motivation to be involved in achievement-oriented behavior (such as in sport, education, and job) that consists of the need for achievement, affiliation, and power. However, this theory and its predecessor can only give a conceptual explanation about the motivation that drives people to perform a behavior.

Lewin's Field Theory
Lewin's field theory explains human behavior. This theory states that human behavior is an outcome of personal interaction with its environment (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Rainio (n.d) noted that the states of life reflect the interaction. We care only for the one with meaning in life, and we move from one meaningful state to another significant state in a locomotion process. For example, when we wake up in the morning, we feel hungry (state 1). We want to be satisfied with food (states 2). If we have achieved that end state, we have to move from state 1 to state 2. To be able to move, we need a motivational force constructed by three factors: tension (t), goals (G), and the psychological distance from the Goals (e). Unfulfilled needs produce tension. Tension and goals have a positive relationship with the motivational force. The higher the tension or the meaning of goals, the higher is the motivation. On the other hand, the 'he has negative relationships with motivational force.
According to this theory, when we are close to our goals, we will be more motivated to reach those goals than when our goals are still far. When we experience that tension, our cognitive capability or experience drives our attention to the object or activity or goals that satisfy needs. For example, when we feel hungry, we experience physiological tension (t), and we want to eliminate this tension by eating foods (goal). The higher the possibility of getting foods (e), the higher the motivation to find foods to eat (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Rotter's (1954) social learning theory is entirely consistent with the expectancy-value theory. This theory. This theory specifies that potential behavioral functions as the motivation representation is expectancy (E) and reinforcement value (R.V.). Expectancy is a subjective assessment of the probability that specific behavior will produce an expected outcome or reinforcement. He defined reinforcements as identifiable events that affect increasing or decreasing the potentiality of some behavior's occurring.

Rotter's Social Learning Theory
Unfortunately, it is not clear the meaning of 'events' in this definition. According to Graham and Weiner (1996), reinforcement value is not fully elaborated in this definition. Therefore, in Rotter (1954), the meaning of the event remained unclear. A more recent explanation from Schiffman and Wisenblit (2015) may enlighten this black box. They defined reinforcement as outcomes that increase the possibility that an individual does or does not do a behavior. They divided it into positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcements are positive experiences obtained from doing a behavior (for example: being healthy by undertaking sport) or not doing a behavior (example: being healthy by stop smoking). Negative reinforcements are negative experiences that can be avoided by doing a behavior (example: avoiding hair fall by using a brand shampoo) or obtaining a behavior (example: heart disease caused by smoking). The desirability of the reinforcement is the one we called reinforcement value.
Back to the expectancy (E). What factors influence the possibility of the outcome of behavior occurrence? As cited by Graham and Weiner (1996), an outcome can be produced by skill-related or chance-related factors. In skill-related factors, outcomes are determined by one's ability; the higher is the ability, the higher is the expectancy. Prior success or failure will influence the ability perception. In chance-related situations, such as the flip of a coin, expectancy remains the same no matter whether the subject is successful or failed in prior experience. Rotter (1966) extended this concept into a broader concept of personality traits, i.e., internal versus external locus of control. Internal locus of control is a general belief that one's fate is influenced mainly by internal factors. Individuals with an external locus of control believe that external factors are responsible for their fate. Therefore, the achievement motivation concept is likely more relevant when skill-related factors produce expectancy, and subjects have the high ability (Nicholls, 1984) and internal locus of control (Graham and Weiner, 1996). Nicholls (1984) stated directly that, "Achievement behavior is defined as behavior directed at developing or demonstrating high rather than low ability."

Atkinson's Theory of Achievement Motivation
The original definition of achievement motivation was from Atkinson (1957;1964), who defined achievement as comparing performances with others and against a certain standard of activities. From this definition, we can see that goals are relative performance. Success or failure to achieve goals is determined by relative performance to others or the standards' fulfillment. Atkinson (1957) specified that the tendency to approach the achievement-related goals (Ts) is determined by three factors: the need for achievement or motive for success (Ms), probability of success to achieve the goals (Ps), and incentive value of success (Is). The relationship between Ts and its determinants is shown by Graham and Weiner (1996) in the following formula: Ts=Ms X Ps X Is According to Graham and Weiner (1996), Ms represents a personality character (i.e., striving for success trait) that is relatively stable and enduring. Ps is a subjective judgment of an individual about the probability of success in achieving goals. As a probability, Ps' value ranges from 0 (no probability) to 1 (a definite possibility). The perceived difficulty of the task can approximate this variable. Based on the same source, Graham and Weiner (1996) described incentive (Is) as an affect labeled "pride of accomplishment" of the task. The Is is the opposite of the Ps. It means that the more difficult it is to achieve success (the lower the Ps), the higher is the incentive (the Is) of achieving success.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
The categorization of motivation into intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Benabou & Torile, 2002;Durmaz & Diyarbakırlıoğlu, 2011) is based on the motivation's origin. Intrinsic motivation is the one that is produced by inner drive within individuals. People are motivated because they are pleasured or happy from performing tasks or from anticipated satisfaction of task accomplishment. Extrinsic motivation is the one that comes from outside. There are many sources of this motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), but familiar sources are rewards (such as money or grades) and coercion or punishment (Durmaz & Diyarbakırlıoğlu, 2011).

Self-Determination Theory
This theory grew amid the growing concern about intrinsic motivation in the 1980s. This theory deals with motivation, persistence, and creativity generated by personal value, interest, and commitment to an activity. In other words, this theory concerns intrinsic motivations.
Despite the focus on intrinsic motivation, this theory does not put extrinsic motivation aside. This theory beliefs that extrinsic motivation will be internalized and works through intrinsic motivation. Further, internationalization will generate an automatic tendency to activate intrinsic motivation. When individuals arrive at this level, intrinsic motivation becomes a personality trait that indicates to what degree they are selfdetermined or self-motivated. Therefore, SDT is a theory of motivation and personality (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Deci and Ryan (2008) stated further that the manifestation of extrinsic motivation in intrinsic motivation follows four regulations. First, external regulation, in which punishment and reward make the motivation becomes intrinsically energized. Second, introjected regulation, in which individuals internalize the regulation and build self-esteem and express their image as socially responsible persons by accepting external regulations. Third, identified regulation in which external expectations autonomously drive individuals because they see it as valuable. Fourth, integrated regulations, in which the external expectations have become part of individuals' values and beliefs, are perceived as necessary for their well-being.
Three basic concepts make up this theory; they are autonomous, competence, and relatedness. By autonomous, this theory explains that an individual is the initiator of behavior and the motivation behind it comes from internal sources. Competence represents an individual who believes that success or failure depends on self-competence to accomplish a task. Relatedness concerns the value of relationships with significant others that may be impacted by the success or failure in performing tasks. If those elements are satisfied, an individual will function and grows optimally.

Trying Motivation
According to Gould et al. (1997), a part of behaviors is trying in nature. It means that in conducting such behaviors, an individual cannot accurately predict the behavior's outcome. Weight reducing program, a university entrance test, and an experiment are all good examples of trying behavior. In other words, some behavior outcomes are uncertain. In that behavior, the involvement of an individual can be categorized as trying.
The authors said that success and failure in a trying influence an individual's motivation to execute the next trying. Of course, success will increase motivation, and failure will decrease it. In other words, successful people in previous trying behavior will focus on succeeding in existing trying behavior. That is to say that in self-regulation, they will be a focus on promotion. On the other hand, people who experienced failure in previous trying behavior will have less confidence to succeed in existing trying behavior. They will focus their effort on avoiding failure. In other words, they will focus on prevention in their self-regulatory.
As we noted before, Gould et al. (1997) said that failure in a previous trial would reduce people's selfconfidence in performing current trying. Based on the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), their selfefficacy will also go down-stairs.

Avoidance and Approach Motivation
Raaij and Wandwossen (1978) noted that one of the models to describe motivation is the need for achievement. They recognized that their model is based on Maslow's (1943) need stratification model. Raaij and Wandwossen's need for achievement is comparable with Maslow's self-actualization. However, Raaij and Wandwossen (1978) included the probability of attaining a goal and failure in their model.
The probability of attaining a goal is stated in the model:

Ts = Ms x Ps x Is
where Ts= Strength of the motivation to get success, Ms = motive or need to achieve success, Ps = probability of success, and Is = Incentives value of success.

Tf=Mf x Pf X If
Meanwhile, the probability of failure is expressed in the following model: Tf=Mf x Pf X If Tf = strength of motivation to avoid failure, Mf = motive to avoid failure, Pf = probability of failure, and If = Incentive value of failure.
According to Raaij and Wandwossen (1978), engagement in an activity is determined by the action's desired goal. The desired goal depends on the comparison between Ts and Tf. The higher the difference between Tf and Ts, the higher is the individual tendency to engage (Ta) in an activity. The mathematical expression for this premise is as follow:

Ta = Ts-Tf
In Raaij and Wandwossen (1978), approach and avoidance motivation is related to two different poles of attitude. 'Ta' can be seen as the magnitude of the attitude, where its valence (positive or negative) is produced by what Schiffman and Kanuk (2012) modeled as compensatory. Therefore, Ta will be favorable if Ts (the strength of approach motivation) higher than Tf (the strength of avoidance motivation) and vice versa. Elliot (1999) noted that approach and avoidance motivation determine behavior differently. In approach motivation, the behavior is directed to get a positive event or possibility, whereas, in avoidance motivation, the behavior is directed to avoid adverse events. In other words, approach and avoidance performance goals produce divergent outcomes and processes. As a consequence of this point of view, each individual should be treated exclusively independently as they are motivated by approach or avoidance motives.

Achievement Goals
At first, goals are viewed as outcomes, results, or consequences of a choice or behavior (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999). Some of the time, the outcomes are positive. Those outcomes are called promotion goals on the off chance that a choice or behavior is coordinated to seek after them. The result can moreover be negative. When a choice or behavior is coordinated to avoid them, those outcomes are called prevention goals (Solomon, 2018). Moreover, consumption goals incorporate involvement, interconnected occasions, and continuous forms (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999).
Numerous behaviors are coordinated by goals. Such behaviors can have any objectives. The objectives are progressive and interconnected. Be that as it may, there is a central goal speaking to or anticipating other goals best (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999).
For illustration, studying in a college could be a goal-directed behavior because it is driven by an eagerness to attain particular objectives. Referring to Bagozzi and Dholakia's (1999) concept, in any case, the achievement goals concept is more notable within the educational field.
Within the early stage of its development, achievement goals refer to anticipated results created by skillrelated variables. They belong to the high self-efficacy individuals (Ames, 1992;Nicholls, 1984). Further, the scientists conceived that this concept also covers the exertion to avoid failure. In this way, Elliot (1999) conceptualized achievement goals as having three primary goals: the trichotomous model. It comprises mastery goals coordinated at creating task-related aptitudes or competence, performance-approach goals purposed to realize relative execution for fulfilling self-image goals, and execution avoidance goals centered on avoiding being seen as an inept one. The high self-efficacy individuals conceptually have the primary two objectives, though the third category is for the low self-efficacy individuals. Elliot and McGregor (2001) included the fourth dimension, called mastery-avoidance goals. This dimension refers to individuals' efforts to avoid failure in mastering a task or having the required competence. With this dimension, the model has two focuses (mastery and performance) and two valences (valence: approach and avoidance). Thus, it is called the 2X2 model that comprises mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance objectives.
Numerous studies affirmed that the foremost model is the 2X2 model (Huang, 2016;Rosas, 2015). Be that as it may, the mastery-avoidance objective has no clear understanding (Pintrich, 2000). The argument around this element's relationship with actual performance is still in question (Hsieh et al., 2007). Subsequently, Elliot's trichotomous model (without mastery-avoidance goals) is the essential choice in many studies (Vandewalle et al., 2019). However, according to Simamora and Mutiarawati (2021), the trichotomous is the better model for the new students' segment, and the 2X2 model is superior to the old segment.

Result and Discussion Redefining Consumer Motivation
There are different understandings of motivation. Many scientists proposed the circumstance in which motivation works rather than the definition of the concept itself. For illustration, Maslow's model (McLeod, 2020) expressed that motivation is the willingness to fulfill needs. He proposed five levels of human needs; they are (from the bottom): physiological, security, social, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs. People require to satisfy the more fundamental need before going further to the higher need. For (Schiffman & Wisenblit, 2015), motivation could be a driving drive that prompts a subject to activity. Graham and Weiner (1996) defined motivation as "the study of why people think and behave as they do." They said that in the beginning, researchers tried to develop a general theory of motivation. The motivation theories did not move to the more unified but more diverse points of view in its development. The differences in the researchers' academic background, where the motivation theories are developed, are the factor that caused this problem (P. Steel and C.J. Koeniq, 2006).
Cherry and Morin (2020) saw motivation as a process. Specifically, they said that motivation is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. This definition sticks to the understanding that motivation belongs to goal-directed behavior and automatically cannot cover the motivation induced by needs. Schiffman and Wisenblit (2015) saw motivation as a driving force within individuals that impels them to action. This definition covers the motivation which comes from needs and expectancy. However, it focuses only on a driving force to energize individuals to do a behavior. Motivation is also required when people decide not to do (for example, to stay away from smoking) or stop doing behavior (for example, to stop smoking) (Karimy et al., 2015). Therefore, for this reason, the definition suggested in this study is, "Motivation is a driving force that energizes individual consumers to do, not to do, or to stop of doing a consumption behavior." The question, how to measure the driving force mentioned above? Until now, there is no simple way to measure it in field research.

Others Factors of Motivation
Besides factors proposed by classic and contemporary theories, there are also various factors proposed by small theories viewed as proximate determinants of motivation, as exhibited in Table 1. Those factors are widely used and measurable in field research. Anticipated emotion (Bagozzi et al., 2016) Anticipated emotions (A.E.) are the future emotions anticipated by individuals as the consequences of the success and failure in accomplishing a task. The success will create anticipated positive emotions (PAE), such as joy, happiness, pleasure, pleasure, release, and failure to generate anticipated negative emotions (NAE), such as sadness, disappointment, anger, and frustration. The PAE influences motivation to get success, and the NAE influences motivation to avoid failure. 2 Beliefs (Arifin et al., 2020) The reason why individuals make a choice. In a university context, the product, promotion, process, people, brand image, and motivation influence the student's decision 3 Anticipated guilt and reward (Scheneider et al., 2017) Anticipated guilt is (A.G.) a feeling of guilt anticipated due to not doing social and environment-oriented behavior. Anticipated reward (A.R.) is a social appreciation expected from doing social and environmentoriented behavior. The AG and A.R. influence motivation to do such behavior positively 4 Anticipated emotions of other people (Simamora, 2021) Other people consist of proponents and opponents. Proponents are people with whom an individual has a close relationship that expects good fortune for the individual. Opponents feel distressed when an individual gets successful and happy when an individual gets misery or failure. The proponents and opponents anticipated that emotions influence individuals' motivation to get success or avoid failure 5 Subjective norms (Ajzen, 2020) Subjective norms are individuals' beliefs that prominent persons expect them to perform or not perform a behavior. This belief influence individuals' motivation regarding the behavior 6 Moral norms (Sun, 2019) When behavior can be classified as permissible or impermissible, moral norms function as a principle or rule that specifies which actions are required, permissible, or forbidden independently of any legal or social institution. Moral norms motivate people to do value-laden behavior.

Motivation Surrogate Variables
The scientists usually use surrogate variables to proxy for consumer motivation, such as attitude, desire, flow, eagerness, and passion. Attitude is a learned predisposition to behave (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2012). It has a motivational quality as it directs the individuals to do or not to do a behavior (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). People will motivate to do a behavior toward which they have a positive attitude (Ajzen, 2020).
Desire is a strong wish or wants for something (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2012). A person with a desire tends to act, feel, think in specific ways (Schroeder, 2020). It energizes people to act and can be used as a proxy for motivation (Belk et al., 1997;Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). People with desire tend to have a strong passion, and therefore the desire can be also be viewed as bodily passion (Belk et al., 1997).
When the desire occupies the mind, people will think of the desired object at all times, and the desire has now changed to flow. The flow is a state in which people are so deeply involved in their imagination about having the wanted object or outcome. They also are ready to incur substantial costs to get it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Also, people with a flow are entirely focused, have a sense of ecstasy, feel the activity as doable, intensely aware of the progress, have a sense of calmness, and are energized intrinsically (Farmer & Armi, 1999). Therefore, they should have great motivation.
In the knowledge-sharing context, van den Hooff and Hendrix (n.d.) defined eagerness as a strong internal drive to share knowledge with others. Säfvenbom et al. (2017) gave the same emphasis that eagerness is the motivation itself. More specifically, it is an autonomous motivation or a motivation that is driven internally. Based on self-determination theory (Mayer et al., 2016), individuals might have external motivation. With eagerness, individuals have internalized it, and they are driven internally to materialize it.
Passion describes the solid inclination for an object or task indicated by a readiness to incur substantial effort and cost to the passionate task or object (Vallerand et al., 2003). Passion is a post-decision motivational force (Simamora, 2021) that consists of harmonious passion (H.P.) and obsessive passion (O.P.). The H.P. depicted individuals' engagement to a goal internalized as part of their identity and viewed as an essential thing in life. However, the activity regarding passionate objects or tasks is orchestrated in harmony with other aspects of life. With the O.P., the individuals focus firmly on creating excitement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. It potentially controls the individuals and takes the dominant aspect of individuals' identities that harms individuals' social lives.

Modeling General Model of Consumer Motivation
The endeavors to develop the consumer motivation model have been on track since long ago. However, we can only find mathematical models of expectancy-value, and need-achievement models proposed by Atkinson (1957) and van Raaij and Wandwossen (1978) described above.
In 2004, Pincus offered a consumer motivation model by joining the biological deficiency and productrelated goals-directed motives. Specifically, the model starts from biological needs that function indirectly through biological homeostasis, instinct, and universal symbolic expression of subconscious needs, directly exploring the behavioral, emotional, and attributional meaning of unmet needs. Interestingly, the three moderating mechanisms will end with a social cognitive balance that creates individuals' different motivations in searching for product-specific requirements. Pincus (2004) said that his model is helpful for practical implementation by which managers can look for the brand meaning besides the biological need fulfillment. However, the model gave less valuable structural relationships among the variables.
Although Graham and Weiner (1996) have warned that the motivation model moves in more diverse ways, the effort to generate a general-like consumer motivation model is made by Schiffman and Kanuk (2012). Pincus (2004) has done in their worldwide used textbook that they join the drive and expectancyvalue perspectives in the same model, as exhibited in Figure 1. The model said that needs and goals are coexisted, although goals are more aware of than needs. However, they give no specification of how to find whether a behavior is pushed by needs or pulled by goals.
In this study, the author uses two aspects in developing the loose and unstructured model of consumer motivation. First, using surrogate variables as consumer motivation representation. In Figure 2, they are positioned in the inner cycle. The reasons why individuals are doing, not doing, or stop doing a behavior, as displayed in the outer part of the circle.
Goal-directed behavior derived from expectancy-value theory dominate the motivation studies so far. As exhibited in Figure 1, the individuals' explainable determinants of motivation are derived from this classic theory. All the factors displayed in the outer circle, except needs, belong to this theory. . As Steel and König (2006) have reminded, in the future, we will see the move of consumer motivation theories to the more diversified directions following the more diversified nature of consumer behavior itself. Building a general model of consumer motivation seems to be pointless work (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Every behavior has its own goals and motives (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999;Graham & Weiner, 1996), and every decision has different mechanisms (Tyburski, 2017). In other words, motivation is a context-specific construct. Therefore, our initiatives are to use the most accurate indicator for each unique behavior in current more diverse consumer behaviors. The loose and unstructured consumer motivation model (Figure 1) gives the flexibility in which researchers can develop their model by modeling the outer and inner circle relationship according to the behavior's distinctive nature.

Figure 2. Consumer Motivation Loose and Unstructured Model
In developing the specific consumer motivation models in the future, scientists need to consider the following considerations. First, the Role of emotions as motivators is now more potent. When consumers are fully connected with the brand or company, the profitability will increase substantially (Magids et al., 2015). Second, in Industry 4.0, the consumers look for a solution, not just product quality (Nagy et al., 2018). Third, with the information abundance, the consumer is informed well, but at the same time feels confused to choose because of the information overload (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Therefore consumer confidence should be used as the main motivator (Simamora, 2021).
So far, in general, we discuss the measurable aspects of consumer motivation. Solomon (2018) stated that consumer motivation could only be approached thoroughly using an in-depth interview. However, the consumers are not aware of most of the reasons that are underlying their behavior. In other words, as Zaltman (2003) underlined, people can never explain why they behave. The motivation that drives consumers to act mainly occurs unconsciously. It can only be approached through a special technic, such as storytelling or metaphor specific in Zaltman's elicitation technic (ZET). Further studies are suggested to focus on unconscious forces of motivation.

Conclusion
Marketing has baptized consumer motivation as its concept. However, there is only little concept peculiarity in marketing tradition as most of its body of knowledge is borrowed from other fields. Existing concepts still focus on the driving force that impels people to perform an action and lack of attention to conceptualize motivation. It is required to energize people to stop from or not perform a behavior. Motivation is redefined as a driving force that energizes individual consumers to do, not to do, or to stop doing a behavior. It can be measured in field research using attitude, desire, flow, eagerness, and passion that function as surrogate variables. In the proposed loose and unstructured general model, these surrogate variables are consumers' primary concepts. In contrast, needs and expectancy-related factors take part as their determinants that work amid the absence of unconscious forces. The proposes general model should be operationalized into a more specific model due to the idiosyncratic nature of the behaviors and situations.