Implicit Motives

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the history of research on implicit motives. Six common principles of implicit motive research are laid out: (1) Implicit motives are nonconscious, (2) motive arousal is associated with characteristic changes in thought content and behavior, (3) motives act as affect amplifiers, (4) motives interact with situational incentives to shape behavior, (5) motives affect multiple levels of psychological functioning, and (6) the number of implicit motives is biologically constrained. The chapter also provides an overview of the structure and topics of the book.

Affective contingencies in the affiliative domain: Physiological assessment, associations with the affiliation motive, and prediction of behavior.

“…We implemented several key methods for the assessment of behavior ranging from daily diary assessments to direct observation in the laboratory (Furr, 2009) and could rule out the alternative explanation that results are due to general responsivity to positive stimuli. We regard this as the most direct evidence available thus far in support of the claim that domain-specific affective contingencies are an important and pervasive cause of motivated behavior (McClelland, et al, 1989;Schultheiss, 2008). A possible step for future research might be to establish a stringent test of causality, for example by investigating whether trainings or therapeutic interventions can lead to increases in PAC-AFF and whether these increases account for future affiliative behavior.…”

Activity inhibition: A predictor of lateralized brain function during stress?

“…It was originally derived from computerized text analyses of folktales collected from native peoples around the world and found to be associated with population differences in alcohol consumption (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner, 1972). Later on, AI was often routinely scored in imaginative stories written by research participants in laboratory studies in response to picture or verbal cues, a procedure that was primarily aimed at the assessment of individuals' implicit needs for power, affiliation, or achievement (see Schultheiss & Pang, 2007). And quite frequently, AI would either directly or in interaction with implicit need measures predict outcome variables as diverse as spousal abuse (Mason & Blankenship, 1987), persuasive communication (Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2002), cardiovascular disease (McClelland, 1979), mood (Langens & Stucke, 2005), or immune system functioning (McClelland, Davidson, & Saron, 1985).…”

The effects of autonomy support on salivary alpha-amylase: The role of individual differences

“…Materials 2.3.1. Implicit autonomy disposition The implicit autonomy disposition was assessed using the Picture Story Exercise (PSE, Schultheiss and Pang, 2007;Murray, 1943). In the present study, participants were asked to write imaginative stories about four standard pictures (stimulus material: women in a laboratory, ship's captain, trapeze artists, and boxer).…”

“…Autonomy scores ranged from 0 to 15 (M = 6.36, SD = 3.79). For subsequent analyses, the scores were corrected for word count (range from 82 to 333 words), as they were correlated (as recommended by Schultheiss and Pang, 2007). Following the guidelines given by Schultheiss and Pang (2007), we used regression analysis to residualize the implicit motive scores for word count and used the residual scores in the analyses reported below.…”

“…Autonomy supportive environments therefore might act as a stressor for people with a low implicit autonomy disposition, and might lead to effortful goal-pursuit and low motive-driven hedonic response. Moreover, autonomy supportive environments could also act as disincentive (Schultheiss, 2008) for other implicit motives (such as affiliation or achievement) for people with a low autonomy disposition. As a consequence, the disincentive could act as stressor to their dominant implicit motive (Schultheiss and Köllner, 2014).…”