revision 2 - mapping explicit social motives onto personal… · mapping explicit social motives of...

Running head: FFM and Social Motives

Mapping Explicit Social Motives of Achievement, Power, and Affiliation onto the Five-

Factor Model of Personality

Stefan Engeser

University of Potsdam, Germany

Thomas A. Langens

University of Wuppertal, Germany

Published in : Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

FFM and Social Motives 2

Abstract

Previous research has shown that explicit motives are meaningfully related to the five-

factor model of personality. The present study extends this research by using different

measures of the explicit social motives of achievement, power and affiliation, and by

employing measures of both approach and avoidance of these motives. Correlational and

factor analyses demonstrated that explicit motives of achievement, power, and affiliation,

both approach and avoidance components of these motives, can be consistently mapped onto

personality trait measures of the five-factor model. Implications of this general finding, along

with some exceptions, are discussed with regard to further research.

Keywords: Five factor model of personality, explicit, implicit, social motives, traits.


Mapping Explicit Social Motives onto Personality Traits

Traits and motives represent theoretically distinct concepts, which researchers employ

to describe and explain human behavior (e.g. Pervin, 1989). Traits have been conceptualized

as stable habits or styles that consistently characterize a person’s behavior (Maddi, 1980), as

enduring dispositions that may have affective, behavioral or attitudinal aspects (Costa &

McCrae, 1980), and as “stylistic and habitual patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior”

(Emmons, 1989, p. 32).

Most trait theorists recommend the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality (Tupes &

Christal, 1992; Norman, 1963), which in its latest version (Costa & McCrae, 1992) identifies

the traits of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness

(A) and Conscientiousness (C) as the general building blocks of personality. Motivational

psychologists, on the other hand, focus on social motives like Achievement, Power and

Affiliation to characterize a person’s personality (e.g. Emmons, 1993; Pervin, 1989). Motives

represent the goals that a person prefers, and they are often – though by no means always (cf.

McClelland, 1985) – experienced as conscious intentions or needs (Cantor & Zirkel, 1990).

Such conscious motives have been termed “explicit motives” by McClelland (1985) or,

alternatively, “self-attributed motives” by McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger (1989).

They can be distinguished from “implicit motives”, which are not consciously accessible.

On this abstract level, the distinction between traits and motives is that traits are stylistic

and habitual patterns, irrespective of a person’s preferred goals, and motives are preferred

goal states, regardless of how these goal states is generally reached. Besides this conceptional

distinction, Costa and McCrae (1980) argue that traits represent motivational aspects as well.

Stylistic and habitual patterns represent what a person is usually aiming for and vice versa.

Also, the most commonly used questionnaire to measure explicit motives, the Personality

Research Form (PRF), was conceived by the test’s designer (Jackson, 1984) as a trait

measure. Moreover, when looking at the single items of the actual measures of traits and


explicit motives, the formulation of these items indicates that the measures tap similar

constructs.

Given that explicit motives and traits overlap and are operationally related, mapping

explicit motives onto the Five-Factor Model allows for an integration of research focusing on

trait constructs and research assessing explicit social motives. For example, several studies

have shown that Conscientiousness predicts high academic performance in diverse settings

(e.g. Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Duff, Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Gray

& Watson, 2002). Similarly, there is evidence that a strong explicit Achievement Motive is

related to high academic performance (e.g. Gjesme, 1974, 1975) and entrepreneurial behavior

(see Collins, Hanges & Locke, 2004).

If explicit Achievement Motive were to map onto Conscientiousness, then these two

bodies of research could be integrated through the assumption that the conscious need to excel

drives both highly conscientious individuals and individuals with a strong explicit motive to

achieve. Thus, mapping explicit motives onto the FFM may help us to compare results from

the two lines of research where mapping is successful, or may stress the need to investigate

traits and explicit motives in their own right.

To date, there have been several studies seeking to relate explicit motives to the FFM of

personality (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1988; Olson & Weber, 2004; Paunonen, Jackson,

Trzebinski, & Försterling, 1992; Stumpf, 1993). Most of these studies have assessed explicit

social motives using the Personality Research Form, which was designed to measure

Murray’s (1938) list of 20 basic manifest needs. For example, a factor analysis of the PRF

scales by Skinner, Jackson & Rampton (1976) yielded a five-factor structure which closely

resembled the five-factor model of personality. Factors were labeled “orientation toward work

vs. play” (akin to Conscientiousness), “aesthetic, intellectual orientation” (akin to Openness),

“dependence vs. autonomy” (akin to Neuroticism), “self-protective vs. submissive

orientation” (akin to low Agreeableness) and “outgoing, social leadership” (akin to


Extraversion). In a combined factor analysis of NEO-PI factors and the PRF scales, Costa and

McCrae (1988) found clear evidence that the PRF scales could be meaningfully organized

within the framework of the FFM. Elaborating on this work, Stumpf (1993) found evidence

that the PRF yields a five-factor structure that closely resembled the FFM in an analysis of 18

data sets from diverse samples. Thus, there is evidence that explicit motives and traits are

closely related.

Studies relating implicit motives to personality measures (Schultheiss & Brunstein,

2001; Pang & Schultheiss, 2005) or to explicit motives (e.g. Sprangler, 1992) have revealed

no or only weak relationships. This is quite a common finding in that implicit and explicit

measure different aspects and are a least not highly correlated (e.g. Nosek, Greenwald, &

Banaji, 2007). Furthermore, the semi-projective tests which could be seen as an in-between

measure of implicit and explicit motives actually revealed only weak correlations with

explicit measures (Sokolowski, Schmalt, Langens, & Puca, 2000). As a consequence of this,

research has focused on the interplay of the implicit motives and personality trait (Winter,

John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998), the interplay of implicit and explicit motives (e.g.

Brunstein & Maier, 2005; Trash, Elliot, & Schultheiss, 2007), or the effects of congruence

between implicit motives and goals (e.g. Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grässmann, 1998; Job &

Brandstätter, in press).

Limitations of Research

The empirical findings accumulated so far, however, may not allow direct comparisons

between traits and explicit motivational concepts, for two reasons. First, and most

importantly, all of the studies seeking to relate explicit motives to traits have relied on a single

indicator of motives (in most cases, the PRF). Since the results obtained for the PRF may not

generalize to other measures of explicit motives, Costa and McCrae (1988) point out that in

order to further explore the relationship between motives and traits, “using alternative


operationalizations would certainly be useful” (p. 263). This point raises the issue that the

way in which traits map onto explicit motives might depend on the measures employed.

As an example, one can consider Costa and McCrae’s (1988) joint factor analysis of

NEO-PI scales and PRF scales, which found that the Achievement scale of the PRF had high

loadings on the Openness factor as well as on the Conscientiousness factor. In a similar factor

analysis of the FFM and basic social values, Achievement values were related to both

Extraversion and Conscientiousness (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Mapping

explicit motives onto the FFM can only be assumed to be successful if consistent relationships

between different measures of explicit motives and personality traits can be observed.

Second, the differentiation between approach and avoidance explicit motives (e.g.

Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2003) has not yet been incorporated into attempts to map explicit social

motives onto personality traits. Commenting on the PRF scales, Costa and McCrae (1988)

argue that Murray’s focus on needs (approach motives) and his relative neglect of fears

(avoidance motives) “makes the complete correspondence between needs and the five-factor

model questionable” (p. 259). Thus, although Costa and McCrae (1988) did find that some of

the PRF scales loaded on a factor that was marked by NEO-PI Neuroticism, Stumpf (1993)

found that this factor could not be reliably replicated in all 18 data sets he analyzed (p. 42).

It is also open whether there is a specific avoidance component for each explicit motive

or whether McClelland’s (1985) assumption holds that avoidance represents a general

component relevant for any type of striving regardless of its specific content. The work of

Elliot and Thrash (2002) on the structure of traits, emotionality, and behavioral activation and

inhibition suggest that the avoidance components of the explicit motives are highly associated

and would also be highly associated with Neuroticism.

The Present Research

The present research addresses these limitations by using more than one single motive

measure and by additionally including the avoidance component of these motives. We


confined our assessment to the three explicit social motives of Achievement, Affiliation and

Power, for two reasons. First, these explicit motives are central dimensions of research on

human motivation (e.g. McClelland, 1985; McAdams, 1992; Winter, 1996). Second, since our

goal was to assess more than one measure for each motive, the inclusion of more motives may

have resulted in an undue response burden for our participants.

In accordance with previous research (Costa et al., 1988; Roccas et al., 2002; Olson et

al., 2004; Stumpf, 1993), we expected explicit Achievement motives to be most closely related

to Conscientiousness. As previous results showed relations to Openness and Extraversion - as

outlined above - we expect a relationship to these factors, although less strong than with

Conscientiousness.

Our prediction concerning the relationship between explicit Power motives and traits is

less straightforward. In one set of studies, the Dominance scale of the PRF (which is used as a

measure of the Power Motive) was positively, but moderately, related to Extraversion and

negatively related to Agreeableness (Costa et al., 1988; Stumpf, 1993), while in others it was

only related to Extraversion (e.g. Paunonen et al., 1992). Nevertheless, we expect the Power

motive to be (moderately) related to extraversion and possibly related to Agreeableness.

In accordance with previous results (Costa et al., 1988; Stumpf, 1993), we expect the

explicit Affiliation motives to be highly related to Extraversion. We do not assume any other

substantial correlations with other factors.

As outlined above, the work by Elliot and Thrash (2002) suggests that explicit

Avoidance components of the explicit motives are highly interrelated and correspond closely

to the Neuroticism factor of the FFM, filling the gap that was left open by the PRF scales. In

line with this, we expect that the Avoidance components of the explicit motive will be related

accordingly.

We further extended our analysis to the facets of the FFM as represented by the NEO-

PI-R. Explicit motive measures represent more specific constructs than personality factors and


should therefore relate more closely to facets of personality traits. In accordance with the

work of Costa et al. (1988) and Stumpf (1993), we expected the strongest relationships

between the explicit Achievement motive and the facet Achievement Striving of

Conscientiousness. The explicit Power motive has shown close associations with the facet

Assertiveness of Extraversion and the facet of Modesty of Agreeableness, and we also expect

to find these relationships in our work. For the Affiliation Motive, an especially close

relationship within the domain of Extraversion has been found for the facets of Warmth and

Gregariousness, and is also expected for the present research.

Method

Participants

A total of 622 people participated in the study. They received either university course

credit or feedback on their personality profile. Persons with missing values for age or sex, as

well as participants who had more than 10% missing values in a questionnaire (either subscale

or facet) were excluded. Missing values for the remaining participants were estimated with

the “expectation maximization” procedure within each construct (Verleye, Pepermans, &

Despontin, 1998). In addition, five participants younger than 18 years were excluded. The

final sample included 380 women and 207 men, with an age range of 18 to 68 years (M =

25.17, SD = 6.64). The general level of education was high (N = 562 having completed at

least high school), and most of the participants were students of the University of Potsdam (N

= 457). The study was conducted online at the beginning of 2005.

Personality Trait Measure

The German version (Ostendorf & Angleitner, 2004) of the revised NEO Personality

Inventory (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item personality questionnaire

developed to measure five dimensions of personality: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E),

Openness to Experience (O); Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). Items had to be


answered on a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Each dimension

consists of six facets (see Table 2 for a list of facets).

Explicit Motive Measures of Approach

Personality Research Form (PRF). The PRF is the most commonly used motive

questionnaire in a wide range of research topics (e.g. Brunstein & Maier, 2005; Costa et al.,

1988; Pang & Schultheiss, 2005; Woike, Mcleod, & Goggin, 2003). From the PRF, we

selected the subscales Achievement, Dominance and Affiliation to assess the three explicit

social motives of Achievement, Power and Affiliation (Emmons & McAdams, 1991; Jackson,

1984; Stumpf, Angleitner, Wieck, Jackson, & Beloch-Till, 1985). Each scale consists of 16

true-false questions that are balanced for acquiescent responding. The Achievement motive is

measured with items concerning hard, persistent work and a preference for difficult problems.

The Power motive is measured with items concerning the wish to hold high-status positions

and to lead others. Finally, the Affiliation motive is measured with items concerning the wish

to be with other people or to interact with others in a friendly manner.

Personal Values Questionnaire (PVQ). The three motives of Achievement, Power and

Affiliation were measured by the German version (Langens, 1995) of the PVQ (McClelland,

1991). Each scale consists of 10 items that had to be answered on a 5-point scale ranging from

(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Although the PVQ is not as widely used as the

PRF, studies conducted so far indicate good measurement qualities (Brunstein & Hoyer,

2002). Achievement is measured with items concerning the development of one’s own

competencies in solving difficult problems and a preference for taking responsibility for

achievement projects. This closely mirrors the understanding of achievement motivation

sensu McClelland (1985). For the power motive, the items of the PVQ are similar to the PRF,

but additionally contain items assessing concerns for prestige (see Winter, 1973). Affiliation

is assessed by items which, again like the PRF, represent the wish to be with others. In

addition, some affiliation items also measured the wish to be with family members.


Achievement Motive Scale (AMS). The German version (Dahme, Jungnickel, & Rathje,

1993) of the AMS (Gjesme et al., 1970) assesses the need for Achievement in the tradition of

Atkinson’s risk-taking model (Atkinson, 1957). It measures the preference for challenging

tasks and for receiving feedback regarding one’s ability, which is labeled as the Hope of

Success (see Fear of Failure component below). The scales consist of 15 items, which had to

be answered on a 4-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. The

AMS is widely used in Scandinavia and Germany and has proven to be a reliable and valid

instrument (e.g. Dahme et al., 1993; Hagtvet & Zuo, 2000; Man, Nygard & Gjesme, 1994;

Rand, 1987).

Mehrabian Affiliation Tendency Questionnaire (MAFF). The German version of the

MAFF was used to measure the explicit Affiliation motive (Mehrabian, 1970). The MAFF

consists of 25 true-false questions. The scale is balanced for acquiescent responding. The

MAFF measures the preference for being with other people (versus doing things alone).

Again, the questionnaire has proven to be a reliable and valid instrument (Mehrabian, 1994).

We were unable to find a questionnaire that provided an additional measure of the

Power motive. This also holds for the Avoidance component of the Power motive.

Explicit Motive Measures of Avoidance

Achievement Motive Scale (AMS). In addition to Hope for Success, the AMS also

measures Fear of Failure. The scale consists of 15 items, which had to be answered on a 4-

point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree and has proven to be a

reliable and valid instrument (see above).

Mehrabian Sensitivity to Rejection Scale (MSR). The German version of the MSR was

used to measure the explicit motive to Avoid Social Rejection (Mehrabian, 1970). The MSR

consists of 24 true-false questions. The scale is balanced for acquiescent responding. The

MSR measures fear of rejection as represented by reticence to state one’s own opinion and


disliking being with strangers. The questionnaire has proven to be a reliable and valid

instrument (Mehrabian, 1994).

Strategy of Data Analyses

To explore the relationships between explicit social motives and personality traits, we

conducted correlation and factor analyses. A motive (e.g., Achievement) can be assumed to

map onto a personality trait (e.g., Conscientiousness) if the following conditions are met: (1)

The correlations among different measures of the same motive (e.g., PRF-Achievement,

PVQ-Achievement, and AMS) and between these motive measures and a personality trait

(e.g., Conscientiousness) are of similar magnitude. (2) Measures of the same motive have

high loadings on a common factor, which is also marked by a personality trait. In line with

relevant previous research (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1988; Stumpf, 1993), we conducted

principal factor analysis with varimax rotation.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

We compared the factor structure of the NEO-PI-R as presented by Ostendorf and

Angleitner (2004) with our data. Tucker-Burt-Wrigley-Neuhaus congruence coefficients (see

Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1991) computed separately for the five factors showed strong

congruence with the factor structure obtained for the present sample (all coefficients > .98).

The correlations for women and men were very similar, and we therefore do not include

gender in presenting the results. The loadings for women and men on the conducted factor

analysis are also very similar, resulting in high congruence coefficients (all coefficients >

.96).

Correlation Analyses

Table 1 presents the correlations among the motive measures and the means, standard

deviations, and internal consistencies of each measure. For all motive measures, the internal

consistencies are satisfactory. As expected, the correlations of the questionnaires within each


motive domain were moderate to high (rs > .53). This indicates that measures of the same

motive have substantial overlap, although the correlations within each motive domain could

have been expected to be higher for instruments of the same construct (Compbell & Fiske,

1959).

The correlations between the motive domains were generally low, with some

exceptions. First, measures of Achievement and Power were substantially positively

correlated. This holds especially true for the PVQ Achievement and Power motive (r = .53).

Second, there were moderate negative correlations between the Achievement motive

measures and the Avoidance components of the motives, and the strongest negative

relationships were found for the AMS. Third, the PRF-power motivation is moderately and

negatively correlated with the Avoidance components. Altogether, the correlations indicate

sufficient construct and differential validity so far.

Table 2 presents the correlations between personality trait and motive measures. As

expected, the Achievement motive correlated positively with the domain of

Conscientiousness, and showed the strongest relationship with the facet of Achievement

Striving. The correlations between Achievement Striving and the motive measures were of

similar magnitude to the correlation measures of achievement motivation (see Table 1). The

Achievement motive measures have substantial positive correlations with Extraversion, which

is particularly the case for the facets Assertiveness and Activity and with Openness for the

Achievement Motive Scale (AMS), particularly for the facets Openness to Ideas. The negative

correlations with Neuroticism and the facet of Vulnerability of this domain are not in line

with the previous research and with our expectations.

In addition to showing high correlations to conscientiousness, a highly achievement-

motivated person is therefore more likely to be resistant to stress (low Vulnerability), and be

active and assertive. Furthermore, the positive correlations with Openness to Ideas


(Openness), especially for the AMS, indicate that being intellectually interested in new ideas

is accompanied by a high achievement motive.

For the Power motive, we obtained highly positive correlations for Personal Research

(PRF) with Extraversion and moderate negative correlations with Agreeableness. The

moderate negative correlation to Neuroticism was not expected. In line with expectation, for

the facets, strong and positive relationships were observed with Assertiveness (Extraversion)

and negatively with Modesty (Agreeableness). Due to the substantial correlations with a

variety of other facets, a high Power motive measured with the PRF is associated with less

Anxiety and Self-Consciousness, lower stress resistance (Vulnerability), as well as with

activity, straightforwardness, competence and a focus on achievement (Achievement

Striving).

The Power motive measured with the Personal Values Questionnaire (PVQ) has weaker

relationships with personality traits and facets. The correlations of the PVQ with the

personality measure are also weaker than the correlations of the two motive measures

themselves (see Table 1). This violates our precondition, in that the correlations between the

Power motive measures and the personality measure have to be as high as between the two

Power motive measures (see Strategy of Data Analyses). However, like PRF-Power, the

strongest correlations were found for the facets Assertiveness (Extraversion), Modesty and

Straightforwardness (both Agreeableness).

As expected, the Affiliation motive correlated strongly and positively with Extraversion

(see Table 2). This correlation is grounded in the facets of Warmth and Gregariousness. These

correlations of the Affiliation motive with personality traits are about as high as the

correlations among the motive measures (see Table 1). The correlation of the Affiliation

motive and the facet of Positive Emotions (Extraversion) is also quite high. As is the case for

Power, the correlations are less pronounced for the PVQ, a finding which will be discussed

below. Additionally, there were moderate positive correlations between the Affiliation motive


and the facets of Trust and Altruism of the domain Agreeableness. A highly affiliative person

is therefore more likely to be friendly and sympathetic (Warmth), trusting and altruistic, and

appreciative of time spent with other people.

As hypothesized, the Avoidance components of the Achievement and Affiliation

motives showed moderate to high positive correlations with Neuroticism (see Table 2).

Except for the facets of Anger-Hostility and Impulsivity, the correlations with all other facets

of Neuroticism were all greater than r = .49. Furthermore, these Avoidance components were

characterized by low Assertiveness and the feeling of low competence.

Factor Analyses

Next, we conducted a factor analysis of the personality trait domains and the motive

measures. An investigation of the scree plot and the application of the parallel analysis (PA)

method (Zwick & Velicer, 1986) clearly indicated a five-factor solution (eigenvalues: 4.53,

2.60, 1.69, 1.57, 1.19, 0.54, 0.49, 0.47). The results of the five-factor solution are presented

in Table 3. As would be expected from the correlations presented above, measures of

Achievement motivation and Conscientiousness had high loadings on a common factor. The

AMS-HS measure had a substantial secondary loading on Openness. Contrary to expectations

and to the correlation presented above (see also Table 2), the Power motive did not show the

highest loading on a factor along with Extraversion, and even the secondary loading is small.

The Power motive had the highest loadings on the factor indexed (negatively) by

Agreeableness. Additionally, PRF-Power had a substantial negative loading on Neuroticism.

Finally, the Affiliation motive measures loaded high on the factor with Extraversion, and both

Avoidance components loaded on the factor along with Neuroticism.

Discussion

The present research was guided by two main questions: First, can the three explicit

motives Achievement, Power, and Affiliation be mapped onto personality traits when

different motive measures are used? Previous studies had used only a single measure of


motives, typically the PRF. Second, can the Avoidance components of explicit social motives

also be reflected by personality traits? Until now, this question has been left open.

The FFM domains of personality were measured with the widely used NEO-PI-R. In the

NEO-PI-R, each domain is represented by six facets, allowing for a more detailed analysis of

personality. By employing the Personal Research Form (PRF) and the Personal Value

Questionnaire (PVQ), we were able to assess all three explicit social motives using different

instruments. We also employed additional measures of the Achievement (Achievement

Motive Scale, AMS) and Affiliation motives (Mehrabian Affiliation Tendency Questionnaire,

MAFF and Mehrabian Sensitivity to Rejection Scale, MSR), which provided measures of

approach tendencies (Hope of Success and Affiliation motivation) and avoidance tendencies

(Fear of Failure and Fear of Rejection). No commonly used measure for the Power motive for

Approach and Avoidance could be found for the study.

In general, the explicit motives of Achievement and Affiliation could be mapped on

personality traits when using different measures of the Motives. The motives were strongly

related to the expected personality traits and facets, and the correlations of the motive

measures within a domain were about as high as the correlations with the corresponding

personality trait measure. For the Power motive, the mapping on personality traits was less

straightforward, and the correlations of the Power motive measures with personality traits

were lower than the correlations between the motive measures themselves. This violates the

assumption that the personality traits measure the same construct as the Motive measures.

For the Avoidance components of the explicit motive, the mapping was again successful,

showing that Avoidance components are highly correlated and are also captured by

personality trait measures.

Achievement Motive

In accordance with our expectations, for the Achievement motive, all of the measures

employed in our research (PRF, PVQ and AMS-HS) showed the highest loadings on the


domain of Conscientiousness and high correlations especially with the facet of Achievement

Striving of this domain. In line with expectations, we also found weak relationships between

Achievement motives and Extraversion, which was qualified by moderate correlations for the

facets Assertiveness and Activity of Extraversion. Furthermore, we found substantial

relationships between the Achievement motive and Openness to Ideas, especially for the

AMS-HS Achievement measure.

The successful mapping on personality trait is especially noteworthy for the AMS,

which captures aspects of the Achievement motive in the tradition of Atkinson’s risk-taking

model (Atkinson, 1957) such as the preference for challenging tasks and the need to receive

feedback concerning one’s ability. These aspects are not captured by Conscientiousness and

might explain the fact that the AMS showed close relations with Openness to Ideas. Openness

is regarded as having a high propensity for innovation and solving problems and an

engagement in intellectual and creative tasks (e. g. Buss, 1991; McAdams & Pals, 2006). It is

also characterized by curiosity with regard to developing new competences (MacDonald,

1995). This corresponds to the preference for challenging tasks, which could be interpreted as

being curious about one’s own performance and being open to receiving feedback about one’s

own competences. In contrast, the PRF and the PVQ, with their focus on Achievement

Striving in the workplace, and to a lesser degree in solving problems, show a smaller overlap

with the personality trait Openness to Ideas.

Power Motive

Contrary to previous research and our expectations, there was no strong evidence that

power motivation maps onto Extraversion. Instead, the Power motive was more strongly

characterized by low Agreeableness, and correlated most strongly and negatively with the

facet of Modesty. Relationships with Extraversion were only evident for one measure (PRF)

and most strongly for one of its facets, namely Assertiveness. The PRF further has substantial


relationships with various domains and facets, in particular a negative relation to Neuroticism

and a positive relationship to the facet of Competence (Conscientiousness).

This indicates that power motivation is a complex and rather heterogeneous

phenomenon (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973; Schultheiss, Pang, Torges, Wirth, & Treynor

2005), which includes striving for elevated status and trying to influence other people

(captured by both the PRF and PVQ) as well as a concern for prestige and an inclination to

arouse strong emotions in other people (captured only by the PVQ). These aspects are not

captured by (a single) personality trait or facet. Further, the concern for prestige and

inclination to arouse emotions included in the PVQ measure did not seem to be captured by

personality trait measures, which could explain why the correlation for the PVQ with

personality traits and facets were generally low, and lower than for the PVQ.

The correlations with various domains and facets of personality measures also indicate

that there might be more aspects of power motivation than have been considered by

motivation researchers. The negative relation to Neuroticism for the PRF indicates that

power-motivated persons seem to be sensitive to negative stress and social rejections to a

lesser degree. This may free the way for power motivation, and longitudinal data suggest that

punishment in childhood leads to a lower implicit power motive in adulthood (McClelland,

1985). Our data appear to suggest that this might also hold for the explicit power motive, or at

least indicate that the explicit Power motive is associated with less sensitivity to stress and

social rejections. In a similar vein, the Power motive is associated with higher Competence,

which enables a power-motivated person to be assertive and lower in Modesty.

On the other hand, our second measurement of the Power motive (PVQ) indicates that

the Power motive does not necessarily correlate with Neuroticism and that this correlation

might be restricted to the measurement of the Power motive with the PRF. Looking at the

item level, it might be interpreted that the PVQ asks how important power-related aspects are,

while the PRF asks participants to indicate power-related behavior and positions. This would


mean that the importance of power is not associated with Neuroticism, but that the path from

Power motive to behavior is restricted by Neuroticism, as we argued in the previous

paragraph. The notion that Neuroticism and the Avoidance motive hinder desires from being

implemented would complement the recent research interest in implicit motives, goal

enactment and well-being (see Brunstein, 2008; Job & Brandstätter, in press).

Affiliation Motive

As expected, affiliation motives were strongly related to Extraversion in general, and

were most closely related to the facets Warmth and Gregariousness of Extraversion.

Moreover, the Affiliation motive substantially correlates with Positive Emotions of

Extraversion. Positive Emotions are considered to be an indicator of a general sensitivity of

the reward system associated with Extraversion (Elliot & Trash, 2002; Watson & Clark,

1997). This allows for the interpretation that the Affiliation motive is accompanied by a

sensitivity of the reward systems to the social situation. This also refers to the core

motivational aspect of affiliation motivations that social relationships are more rewarding for

persons high in affiliation (McClelland, 1985; Sokolowski & Heckhausen, 2008). The

Relationships with Extraversion were weaker for one measure with the PVQ. Similar to the

Power motive, the PVQ measures an aspect that is not represented by the other measures,

namely the wish to be with family members.

Additionally, there were moderate positive correlations between the Affiliation motive

and the facets of Trust and Altruism of the domain Agreeableness. High affiliation is

therefore not only characterized by enjoying the company of others, but also by a belief in the

sincerity and good intentions of others and an active concern for the welfare of others. This

should in general lead to more enjoyable and rewarding social relationships (van Lange, De

Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997), and most likely stabilize and foster the Affiliation motive.

The finding that the explicit affiliation motive and the explicit power motive are related

to extraversion is also in accordance with Depue’s model of agentic (i.e. power-related) and


affiliative components of extraversion (e.g. Morrone, Depue, Scherer & White, 2000). On the

other hand, it points to the problem that several concepts are subsumed under one domain.

McCrae and Costa (1996) see the core in the enjoyment of the company of others and this is

in accordance with the strong relationship we found for the Affiliation motive. Other

researchers see the core of extraversion as lying in leadership potential and a disposition for

power use (e. g. Hogan, 1996), which is in line with the strong relationship of the Power

motive with the facet of Assertiveness of Extraversion. On an empirical level, the facet of

Assertiveness has relatively low factor loadings on the domain (Becker, 2004; Ostendorf, &

Angleitner, 2004). This points to the fact that leadership and a disposition for power use is not

at the core of Extraversion in the personality measure we used (NEO-PI-R), and other

personality measures could lead to different results concerning the Power and Affiliation

motive (cf. Paunonen et al., 1992). We will return to this issue when discussing the limitations

of our study.

Avoidance Components the Motives

In line with our predictions, the Avoidance component of the Achievement and

Affiliation motives were highly correlated and fall on a common factor with Neuroticism.

This gives rise to two conclusions. First, Fear of Failure of the Achievement motive and

Sensitivity to Rejection of the Affiliation motives do tap into the same construct. This

supports the reasoning of McClelland (1985) that there is one Avoidance motive based on

generalized anxiety (cf. Carver & White, 1994; Elliot & Trash, 2002). Second, Neuroticism

could be seen as a sensitivity of a general system to respond to environmental stress (e. g.

Hogan, 1996) and not only in situations in which people’s social relationships are threatened

(e. g. Denissen & Penke, 2008).

On the other hand, at a deeper level Fear of Failure might have developed from social

rejection or the Fear of Social Rejection. Empirical data from Trudewind and Husarek (1979;

see also Brunstein & Heckhausen, 2008) point in this direction. Individuals developed a


stronger Fear of Failure when their mothers criticized failure but were neutral to success,

attributed failure to lack of ability, showed little respect for their children’s wish for

autonomy, and finally, were more likely to apply social norms for their children (i.e. compare

results with others) instead of individual norms (i.e. compare the results with the child’s own

previous results) or objective norms. This also fits in with the regular finding that social

norms foster Fear of Failure (Rheinberg & Engeser, in press).

The negative relationship of the Avoidance components to the facet of Assertiveness

(Extraversion) might also lend credence to this interpretation. Individuals might fear negative

reactions to assertive actions and therefore avoid assertive actions. Furthermore, the negative

relations to Competence (Conscientiousness) could be due to the fear of being rejected or

disapproved of.

Implications

The possibility to map motive measures onto personality traits has great advantages. In

general, the two lines of personality research could be compared. Motivational research could

benefit from the vast research on sophisticated personality measures of traits (the motive

measures have attracted far less empirical research) and could concentrate on the

measurement and study of implicit motives and the interaction of implicit motives and

explicit motives or personality traits (see introduction). Further, the FFM of personality could

be used as a reference to locate explicit motive measures. At least for the Affiliation motive,

the personality trait measures can be used without serious restriction and the two different

lines of research are comparable. The same holds true for Neuroticism and the Avoidance

motive.

For the Achievement motive, there are some restrictions. Researchers interested in the

specific aspects of Achievement motivation as characterized by Atkinson’s theory might

therefore prefer to use the AMS (a short form of the AMS was recently published which also

corrected for the intercorrelations of Hope of Success and Fear of Failure; Lang & Fries,


2006). For researchers interested in a more general sense of achievement striving, however,

the psychometrically more sophisticated personality trait measures might be preferable. The

two bodies of research for Conscientiousness and the Achievement motives appear to be

warranted by our data. Using the example of the introduction, we could assume that the same

underlying psychological processes for Conscientiousness predict high academic performance

in diverse settings, and that the explicit Achievement motive predicts high academic

performance and entrepreneurial behavior.

A large proportion of the research on personality traits deals with correlations and factor

analysis of different instruments, leaving out further aspects of validity. Research on

personality traits could therefore benefit from the research on motivation, which has a

stronger tradition of using real-life data and an experimental approach. As an example, Woike

and colleagues (Woike, 1995; Woike et al., 2003) found strong effects of explicit motives on

autobiographical memory and memories of daily events for the PRF measure of Achievement

and Affiliation. Personality researchers might use the results as an indication that

Conscientiousness and Extraversion have the same effects on autobiographical memory and

on the memories of daily events. Similarly, the renewed interest in achievement-motivated

behavior in experimental settings could provide new insights into the impact of personality

traits in experimental settings (cf. Brunstein & Heckhausen, 2008).

For the Power motive, a direct comparison between personality research and research

on motivation is not possible, as the mapping of the Power motive on personality is less

straightforward. For motivational research, this means that the reliance on personality

measures cannot be recommended and investment in good measures of the motive seems

warranted. This investment should be informed by the results found here regarding

personality trait measures. The personality trait measures should also be used as a reference

system to locate the Power motive again. Personality trait measures could be informed by the


results found in this study that Extraversion is a composite of possible separate aspects not

subsumed in one domain.

Limitations

The present study has integrated several instruments of explicit motive measures and

their avoidance components, but only one personality trait measure was used. This personality

measure - the NEO-PI-R - is a widely used and accepted personality trait measure which was

used as an accepted reference to other measures. Nevertheless, the use of other personality

measures might possibly have yielded different results. We touched on this issue above in

terms of Extraversion and pointed out that different measures of the Five-Factor Model have

some conceptual deviations (see Denissen & Penke, 2008). The present research further relied

on the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, excluding competing models of personality

traits (e. g. Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004; Eysenck, 1992; Zuckerman, 2002), which may

capture the global aspects of personality equally well or even better. To extend our

conclusions made on the grounds of the FFM, these other models should be considered.

A second limitation is that in the current study, only construct validity was considered

and no external criteria were included. Consequently, external criteria should be included to

investigate whether measures of personality traits and explicit motives predicting the same

outcome. Future research should systematically tap into behavioral data when questioning

participants or should conduct experiments testing the validity of personality trait measures

and motive measures.

Conclusions

By using more than one measure of the three explicit motives of Achievement, Power,

and Affiliation, it was possible to replicate previous results and successfully map explicit

motives and personality traits, with some restrictions outlined above. Thus, the two areas of

research are strongly related based on the high construct validity. Considering the facets of

personality enabled a more detailed picture. By including the Avoidance components of the


explicit motives, it was possible to shed light on the terra incognita and to show Avoidance

components as being highly related to Neuroticism.


Reference List

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological

Review, 64, 359-372.

Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L.R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English

personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,

707-721.

Becker, P. (2004). Zur Replizierbarkeit und Interkorrlationsstruktur der Faktoren im

revidierten NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar (NEO-PI-R) und Trierer Integrierten

Persönlichkeitsinventar (TIPI) [About invariance and intercorrelation of factors in the

Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Trier Integrated Personality

Inventory (TIPI)]. Diagnostica, 50, 39-48.

Brunstein, J. C. (2008). Implicit and explicit motives. In J. Heckhausen, & H. Heckhausen

(Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 227-246). Cambridge: University Press.

Brunstein, J. C., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Achievement motivation. In J. Heckhausen, & H.

Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 137-183). Cambridge: University

Press.

Brunstein, J. C., & Hoyer, J. (2002). Implizites versus explizites Leistungsstreben: Befunde

zur Unabhängigkeit zweier Motivationssysteme. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische

Psychologie, 16, 51-62.

Brunstein, J. C., & Maier, G. W. (2005). Implicit and self-attributed motives to achieve: Two

separate but interacting needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 205-

222.

Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional

wellbeing: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 494-508.


Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42,

459-491.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cantor, N., & Zirkel, S. (1990). Personality, cognition, and purposive behavior. In L.A. Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 135-164). New York:

Guilford Press.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and

affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J., & Locke, E.A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation

to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Behavior, 17, 95-117

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to

some issues in adulthood and old age. In P.B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life span

development and behavior (pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Press.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the

five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and

NEO Five Factor Inventory. Professional Manual. Odessa, Fl.: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Dahme, G., Jungnickel, D., & Rathje, H. (1993). Güteeigenschaften der Achievement Motives

Scale (AMS) von Gjesme und Nygard (1970) in der deutschen Übersetzung von

Göttert und Kuhl - Vergleich der Kennwerte norwegischer und deutscher Stichproben.

Diagnostica, 39, 257-270.


Denissen, J. J A., & Penke, L. (2008). Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the

Fiv-Factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual

framework. Journal of Personality Research, 42, 1285-1302.

Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between

personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920.

Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach

and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82, 804-818.

Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.),

Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 87-126). Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum.

Emmons, R. A. (1993). Current status of the motive concept. In K.H. Craik & R. Hogan

(Eds.), Fifty years of personality psychology (pp. 187-196). New York: Plenum Press.

Emmons, R. A., & McAdams, D. P. (1991). Personal strivings and motive dispositions:

Exploring the links. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 648-654.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual

Differences, 13, 867-868.

Furnham, A. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of

statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943-955.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Evidence for bivariate systems: An empirical

test of appetition and aversion across domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,

349-372.

Gjesme, T. (1974). Goal distance in time and its effects on the relations between achievement

motives and performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 161-171.


Gjesme, T. (1975). Slope of gradients for performance as a function of achievement motive,

goal distance in time, and future time orientation. Journal of Psychology:

Interdisciplinary and Applied, 91, 143-160.

Gjesme, T., & Nygard, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives: Theoretical considerations

and construction of a measuring instrument. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Oslo.

Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2002). General and specific traits of personality and their relation

to sleep and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 70, 177-206.

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1991). A comparison of pattern matching indices. Multivariate

Behavior Research, 26, 323-343.

Job, V. & Brandstätter, V. (in press). Get a Taste of Your Goals: Promoting Motive-Goal

Congruence through Affect-Focus Goal Fantasy. Journal of Personality.

Hagtvet, K. A., & Zuo, L. (2000). Conceptual and empirical components of an internal

domain study: An illustration in terms of the Achievement Motives Scale.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44, 49-78.

Heckhausen, H., Schmalt, H.-D., & Schneider, K. (1985). Achievement motivation in

perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S.

Wiggins(‘Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163-

179). New York: Guilford Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research

Psychologists Press.

Job, V., & Brandstätter, V. (in press). Get a Taste of Your Goals: Promoting Motive-Goal

Congruence through Affect-Focus Goal Fantasy. Journal of Personality.


Lang, J.W.B., & Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the Achievement Motives

Scale: Psychometric properties in German-speaking samples. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 22, 216-224.

Langens, T. (1995). A German translation of the Personal Values Questionnaire. Unpublished

Manuscript, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany.

Maddi, S. R. (1980). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (4th ed.). Homewood, IL:

Dorsey Press.

Man, F., Nygard, R., & Gjesme, T. (1994). The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS):

Theoretical basis and results from a first try-out of a Czech form. Scandinavian

Journal fo Educational Research, 38, 209–218.

MacDonald, K. B. (1995). Evolution, the Five-Factor Model, and levels of personality.

Journal of Personality, 63, 525-567.

McCrae, R. R., & Cost, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:

Theoretical contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor

model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). Niew York: Guilford Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The intimacy motive. In C.P. Smith & J. W. Atkinson (Eds.),

Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 224-228).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an

integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204-217.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman and Co.

McClelland, D. C. (1991). The Personal Value Questionnaire. Boston: McBer & Co.

McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit

motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.


Mehrabian, A. (1970). The development and validation of measures of affiliative tendency

and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 417-428.

Mehrabian, A. (1994). Evidence bearing on the affiliative tendency (MAFF) and sensitivity to

rejection (MSR) scales. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,

Social, 13, 97-117.

Morrone, J.V., Depue, R.A., Scherer, A.J., & White, T.L. (2000). Film-induced incentive

motivation and positive activation in relation to agentic and affiliative components of

extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 199-216.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated

factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age

7: A methodological and conceptual review (pp. 265–292). In J. A. Bargh (Ed.),

Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior. Psychology Press.

Olson, K. R., & Weber, D. A. (2004). Relations between big five traits and fundamental

motives. Psychological Reports, 95, 795-802.

Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-PI-R. NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa

und McGrae. Revidierte Fassung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Pang, J. S., & Schultheiss, O. (2005). Assessing implicit motives in U.S. college students:

Effects of picture type and position, gender and ethnicity, and cross-cultural

comparisons. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 280-294.

Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J., & Försterling, F. (1992). Personality structure

across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 62, 447-456.


Pervin, L. A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Rand, P. (1987). Research on achievement motivation in school and college. In F. Halisch &

J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention and volition (pp. 215-232). Berlin: Springer.

Rheinberg, F., & Engeser, S. (in press). Motive training and motivational competence. In O.

C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Implicit Motives. Oxford: University Press.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors

and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789-801.

Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). Assessment of implicit motives with a research

version of the TAT: Picture profiles, gender difference and relations to other

personality measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 71-86.

Schultheiss, O. C., Pang, J. S., Torges, C. M., Wirth, M. M., & Treynor, W. (2005). Effects of

implicit power motivation on men's and women's implicit learning and testosterone

changes after social victory or defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88, 174-188.

Skinner, H. A., Jackson, D. N., & Rampton, G. M. (1976). The Personality Research Form

(PRF) in a Canadian context: Does language make a difference? Canadian Journal of

Behavioral Science, 8, 156-168.

Sokolowski, K., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Social bonding: affiliation motivation and

intimacy motivation. In J. Heckhausen, & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and

action (pp. 184-201). Cambridge: University Press.

Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H.-D., Langens, T.A., & Puca, R.M. (2000). Assessing

achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once - the Multi-Motive Grid

(MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 126-145.

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154.


Stumpf, H. (1993). The factor structure of the Personality Research Form: A cross-national

evaluation. Journal of Personality, 61, 27-48.

Stumpf, H., Angleitner, A., Wieck, T., Jackson, D. N., & Beloch-Till, H. (1985). Deutsche

Personality Research Form (PRF). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Thrash, T. M., Elliot, A. J., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2007). Methodological and dispositional

predictors of congruence between implicit and explicit need for achievement.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 961-974.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.

Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251.

van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development

of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations : Theory and preliminary

evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733-746.

Verleye, G., Pepermans, R., & Despontin, M. (1998). Missing at random data problems and

maximum likelihood structural equation modelling. In J. Hox & E. D. de Leeuw

(Eds.), Assumptions, robustness, and estimation methods in multivariate modeling (pp.

111-140). Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,

J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.767-793). San

Diego: Academic Press.

Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: The Free Press.

Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation of lives. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and

motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological

Review, 105, 230-250.


Woike, B. (1995). Most-memorable experiences: Evidence for a link between implicit and

explicit motives and social cognitive processes in everyday life. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 68, 1081-1091.

Woike, B., Mcleod, S., & Goggin, M. (2003). Implicit and explicit motives influence

accessibility to different autobiographical knowledge. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1046-1055.

Zuckerman, M (22002). Zuckerman-Kuhlmann personality questionnaire (ZKPQ): An

alternative five-factor model. In B. de Raad (Ed.), Big five assessment (pp. 376-392).

Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number

of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Two-Tailed Correlations among Variables.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD αAchievement 1 PRF 58 53 31 21 12 -02 08 -37 -23 9.95 3.11 72 2 PVQ 57 33 532 14 20 09 -23 -16 32.70 6.90 83 3 AMS-HS 28 18 09 06 06 -46 -26 45.55 6.34 88Power 4 PRF 54 18 -01 27 -43 -46 6.88 4.07 85 5 PVQ 05 08 07 -06 -04 18.90 8.80 88Affiliation 6 PRF 59 77 -15 -18 10.57 3.47 77 7 PVQ 57 10 06 37.25 6.68 82 8 MAFF -15 -24 15.67 3.90 72Avoidance 9 AMS-FF 56 30.81 8.51 93 10 MSR 13.25 4.53 79Note. N = 587. The decimal points have been omitted for correlations.

For |r| > .08, p < .05; |r| > .11, p < .01.

Correlations within each motive domain are given in boldface.

PRF = Personality Research Form, PVQ = Personal Values Questionnaire, AMS-HS =

Achievement Motive Scale - Hope of Success, MAFF = Mehrabian Affiliation Tendency

Questionnaire, AMS-FF = Achievement Motive Scale - Fear of Failure, MSR = Mehrabian

Sensitivity to Rejection Scale.


Table 2

Correlations of Motive Measures with NEO-PI-R Facets and Domain Scales.

Achievement Power Affiliation Avoidance

PRF PVQAMS-

HS PRF PVQ PRF PVQ MAFF AMS-

FF MSRNeuroticism -30 -13 -28 -40 -04 -18 07 -18 66 55 Anxiety -19 -04 -21 -35 01 -12 12 -13 58 49 Anger-Hostility -15 -03 -16 -07 10 -14 04 -12 37 23 Depression -29 -11 -26 -38 -05 -19 03 -22 60 50 Self-Consciousness -26 -14 -24 -50 -08 -25 01 -28 63 66 Impulsivity -12 -04 -05 -05 00 04 09 09 18 10 Vulnerability -37 -25 -38 -45 -13 -13 05 -13 65 50 Extraversion 26 28 29 55 27 65 44 67 -35 -41 Warmth 16 18 23 25 06 62 50 61 -16 -25 Gregariousness 03 07 03 28 15 70 50 68 -16 -22 Assertiveness 32 33 29 74 35 30 12 39 -48 -53 Activity 43 36 35 41 24 27 15 30 -30 -20 Excitement-Seeking 03 12 14 30 27 29 16 27 -10 -15 Positive Emotions 13 12 20 28 07 50 36 52 -24 -30Openness 08 18 31 10 -01 19 20 19 -15 -22 Fantasy -15 -02 07 -01 00 03 13 06 03 -05 Aesthetics 05 11 13 -04 -05 16 27 14 02 -04 Feelings 01 10 12 08 -03 26 34 29 04 -06 Actions 14 11 25 10 -04 24 06 22 -27 -32 Ideas 27 35 49 24 13 02 -04 00 -28 -29 Values 01 03 14 02 -07 03 -05 02 -18 -16Agreeableness -03 -09 -02 -43 -39 26 31 20 13 18 Trust 07 05 15 04 -11 40 30 39 -17 -19 Straightforwardness -03 -13 -06 -51 -39 -05 04 -10 15 20 Altruism 07 08 14 -09 -10 37 40 33 03 05 Compliance -11 -17 -09 -36 -26 07 05 01 10 26 Modesty -06 -18 -17 -50 -46 02 12 -04 30 28 Tender-Mindedness -07 -02 -03 -27 -18 17 29 17 12 13 Conscientiousness 55 44 36 26 16 15 09 11 -30 -08 Competence 40 37 38 43 22 18 08 17 -49 -31 Order 32 24 17 18 13 08 09 08 -10 03 Dutifulness 44 35 30 10 03 11 10 09 -19 -05 Achievement Striving 65 58 45 35 28 20 10 17 -31 -12 Self-Discipline 50 33 33 21 06 18 08 13 -34 -13 Deliberation 15 12 01 -07 01 -09 -04 -15 07 21 Note. N = 587. Decimal points have been omitted. For |r| > .08, p < .05; |r| > .11, p < .01.

Correlations greater or equal to |.30| are given in boldface.

For abbreviations see Table 1.


Table 3

Joint Factor Loadings for NEO-PI-R Domain Scales and Motive Measures

1 2 3 4 5 Personality Neuroticism (N) 82 -11 26 02 -24 Extraversion (E) -36 73 20 28 15 Openness (O) -08 19 88 -07 08 Agreeableness (A) 16 31 10 -77 10 Conscientiousness (C) -20 13 -37 -02 74 Achievement 8 PRF -23 02 00 06 80 9 PVQ 06 12 19 33 80 10 AMS-HS -27 -01 40 04 71 Power 11 PRF -46 22 03 71 18 12 PVQ 12 15 00 82 31 Affiliation 13 PRF -13 89 01 -06 06 14 PVQ 26 79 09 -09 12 15 MAFF -18 89 03 02 -03 Avoidance 16 AMS-FF 81 -02 -10 -05 -29 16 MSR 79 -11 -25 -18 00 Note. N = 587. Decimal points have been omitted and highest loadings are given in boldface.

Varimax-rotated principal components; the five factors explain 77 % of the variance.

For abbreviations see Table 1.

revision 2 - mapping explicit social motives onto personal… · mapping explicit social motives of...

Documents