JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 12, 500-503 (1978)

Achievement Motivation and Entrepreneurial Success: A Follow-up Study

SATVIR SINCH

Guru Nanak Dev University

A seven-year follow-up study of agricultural entrepreneurs of high and low achievement motivation was conducted. The findings indicate that agriculture entrepreneurs with high n-Ach continue to increase their productivity more than their counterparts. In addition, the data lend support to the thesis that n-Ach is stable over time.

There is impressive evidence at the macro and micro levels that achievement motivation (n-Ach) promotes entrepreneurship, which, in turn, is a key to economic growth (McClelland, 1961; McClelland & Winter, 1969; Morgan, 1964).

The experimental designs used in the majority of studies have been postdictive, since present motives were related to previous performance. It is possible that success and failure experiences modify need for achievement, although McClelland (1965) argues in support of early learn- ing in the formation of motives. However, longitudinal studies which relate n-Achievement and economic growth are not numerous. Among these are Kagan and Moss (1962) and McClelland (1965) who suggest that high n-Achievement predisposes people to end up in entrepreneurial occupations rather than determining their entrepreneurial success.

The present study is a step in this direction. Its main purpose is to explore the role of achievement motivation in promoting agricultural entrepreneurship by presenting data on the relationship of n-Achievement and agricultural income, per land unit, over a seven-year period.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were farmers of the Rohtak Development Block (Haryana). They were well acquainted with modern agricultural techniques. The facilities of roads, banks, electricity. post office, marketing, and education were available to them. Agriculture is tax-free in the

Requests for reprints should be sent to Satvir Singh. Department of Psychology. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar-143005, India.

500

0092-6566/78/O 124-0500$02.00/0 Copyright 0 1978 by Academx Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form resel-ved.

N-ACH AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS 501

state. They had a considerable amount of land and were engaged in self-farming, taking the entire risk of gain or loss for the crops they raised. Only those farmers who had records of their sales for the years 1964-I%9 were included in the sample.

Growth Rate

The price of total farm output (1964-1969) for each subject was assessed at the 1964 market rate of each commodity. The total income of each farmer, thus obtained. was divided by the number of acres cultivated by him in the respective year. The obtained figures indicated the amount of money a farmer earned from one acre of land in each year. These data were used to compute the total increase per acre in the farm output for each subject using the formula: Total Increase = (Y,-Y,)/Y, x 100. The designates Y, and Y, referred to average output in rupees per acre for years 1964-65 and 1967-68. respectively.

Tests

Subjects were individually administered an adapted version of McClelland’s TAT (Set. Note 1) following the procedure developed by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell (1953). The clothes worn by the figures in these cards have been modified to appear Indian. TAT stories were scored for n-Achievement following the method outlined in the self- training manual (Atkinson, 1958). and each subject was assigned a total score based on six stories. Before scoring the TAT protocols, the investigator had reached a rank-order correla- tion of .91 with the n-Achievement practice materials (Smith & Feld, 1958). Earlier, the test was used by McClelland in his training program at Kakinada and Vellore (McClelland & Winter, 1969). The mean n-Ach score of the sample was 14.36 with a standard deviation of 7.62. In all, 300 subjects were tested in 1969.

Procedure On the basis of n-Achievement scores, the upper 5% (N = 15) and lower 5% (N = 15).

were selected. The selected groups were designated as high n-Achievement and low n-Achievement groups. The selected groups of the original 1969 sample were located and asked to participate in a comprehensive follow-up study in 1976. The two groups were comparable in age, education, number of workers, land holding, and socio-economic status (Pareek & Trevedi, 1964). Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the sample characteristics of both the groups, together with the values oft. McClelland’s TAT test of n-Achievement was again administered to assess the subjects’ level of n-Achievement in the usual manner. The record for the quantity of farm products for each subject from 1970 to 1976 was available. The price for total output of each farmer from 1970-1976 was then assessed at the 1970 market rates of each commodity. The total income of each farmer thus obtained, was divided by the number of acres cultivated by him in the respective year. The obtained figures were used to compute the total increase in farm output for each subject for the second study using the formula: Total Increase = (Y,-Y,)IY, x 100. The designates Y, and Y, referred to average output in rupees per acre for the years 1970-1972 and 1974- 1976. respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The number of subjects being small, the significance of differences was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U-test for two independent samples (Siegel, 1956). The comparisons revealed that the high n-Ach and low n-Ach groups of the 1969 study differed significantly on n-Ach (17 = 49: p < .02, two-tailed) and on percent increase in farm output (U = 51; p < .02, two tailed), the high n-Ach group scoring higher on both variables. A

502 SATVIR SINGH

TABLE I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE HIGH n-ACH AND Low n-AcH GROUPS

Variable

High n-Ach (N = 15)

Mean SD

Low n-Ach (N = 15)

Mean SD t P

Age (years) 36.67 9.66 35.27 10.02 .38 n.s. Education (years) 7.47 4.32 6.73 2.96 57 ns. Land holding (acres) 25.40 6.86 26.53 7.20 .42 ns. Social status” 28.00 8.77 28.66 4.73 .25 n.s. Number of Workers 5.13 1.55 5.20 2.45 .09 n.s.

” Pareek and Trevedi (1964) scale

similar comparison for the high n-Ach and low n-Ach groups for the 1976 study also revealed that the high n-Ach group scored significantly higher than the low n-Ach group on n-Ach (U = 51; p < .02, two tailed) and on percent increase in farm output (U = 48; p < .02, two tailed). The means and standard deviations for n-Ach and farm output of both 1969 and 1976 studies are presented in Table 2.

A comparison of the high and low n-Ach groups for the 1969 study and 1976 study on n-Ach and farm output revealed that both the groups differed significantly only on farm output (U = 48; p < 02; two tailed), the high n-Ach group for the 1976 study scoring higher. It is clear that these data afford substantial support for McClelland’s (1961) hypothesis that achievement motivation is in part responsible for economic growth.

In light of the criticism that projective tests suffer from lack of reliabil- ity (e.g., Murstein, 1963; Weinstein, 1969; Entwisle, 1972), the 1969 n-Ach scores were correlated with the 1976 n-Ach scores for total sample (n = 30). The Spearman rank correlation obtained was .63. This finding

TABLE 2 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR n-ARCH AND FARM OUTPUT OF BOTH STUDIES

High n-Ach Low n-Ach (N = 15) (N = 15)

Mean SD Mean SD D

1969 study

n-Ach % increase in farm output 1970-1976

29.33 3.77 6.00 4.26 <.Ol

33.13 9.11 12.20 6.13 <.Ol

1976 study n-Ach % increase in farm output 1970-1976

28.13 4.32 7.80 4.12 <.Ol

44.87 12.14 13.40 5.61 <.Ol

N-ACH AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS 503

adds to the evidence that n-Achievement scores are stable over time (Feld, 1967; Lowell, Note 2; Morgan, 1953).

It would be premature to say for certain that McClelland’s hypothesis is right and that achievement motivation leads to economic development among farmers, since the present sample was small and the statistical techniques suitable to the analysis were relatively crude. Longitudinal studies using a larger sample would provide better evidence on the predic- tive validity of n-Achievement measures.

REFERENCES Atkinson, J. W. Motives in fantasy, action and society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958. Entwisle, D. R. To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of achievement motiva-

tion. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 77, 377-391. Feld. S. Longitudinal study of the origins of achievement strivings. Journal of Personalit>

and Social Psychology, 1967, 7,408414. Kagan. J.. & Moss, H. A. Birth to maturity. New York: John Wiley & Sons. l%2. McClelland, D. C. The achieving society. New York: Free Press, 1961. McClelland, D. C. n-Achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 389-392. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive,

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. Motivating economic achie\!ement. New York: Free

Press, 1969. Morgan, H. H. Measuring achievement motivation with picture interpretations. Journal of

Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17, 289-292. Morgan, J. N. The achievement motive and economic behavior. Economic Development

and Cultural Change, 1964, 12, 243-267. Murstein, B. I. Theory and research in projective techniques. New York: Wiley, l%3. Pareek, U., & Trevedi, Ci. Manual of the so&o-economic status scale (rurali. Delhi:

Manasayan, 1964. Siegel, S. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1956. Smith. C. P., & Feld, S. How to learn the method of content analysis for n-Achievement.

n-Affiliation, and n-Power. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy. action and society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958.

Weinstein, M. S. Achievement motivation and risk preference. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 155-172.

REFERENCE NOTES I. Siet Institute. Adapted version of McClelland’s Apperception Test of Achievement Moti-

vation. Hyderabad, 1964. 2. Lowell, E. L. A methodoiogicaf study ofprojective/y measured achievement motivation.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Wesleyan University, 1950.