Personality researchers are increasingly interested in the dynamics of personality, that is, the proximal causal mechanisms underlying personality and behavior. Here, we review the Zurich Model of Social Motivation concerning its potential to explain central aspects of personality. It is a cybernetic model that provides a nomothetic structure of the causal relationships among needs for security, arousal, and power, and uses them to explain an individual's approach‐avoidance or “proximity‐distance” behavior. We review core features of the model and extend them by adding features based on recent behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. We close by discussing the model considering contemporary issues in personality science such as the dynamics of personality, five‐factor personality traits and states, and personality growth.

Psychological science has a hard time assessing affective processes of the individuals that they may not recognize or do not like to report on. Here, the authors used the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT; Quirin et al., 2009) to investigate whether reminders of an existential threat induce unpleasant implicit affect in soldiers waiting for their deployment to a country with high levels of terrorist threat, Afghanistan. As expected, relative to reminding participants of a television evening, implicit negative affect was higher and implicit positive affect was lower after reminding participants of terror acts performed in different cities. No significant effects were found in self-reports of negative or positive affect. Our findings suggest that reminders of existential threat can elicit implicit negative affect that individuals may not report on explicitly and thus, validate the IPANAT as an easily applicable measure in emotional contexts.

Philosophers and scientists have been puzzling over the potential antecedents and consequences of self-awareness or its relative absence since time immemorial. One major reason is the difficulty of identifying individuals’ actual needs, emotions, or goals and thus making statements about their level of self-awareness. Drawing on a “duality of mind” approach, we review our research that quantified discrepancies between first-person perspective and third-person perspective assessments of motives (“needs”), emotions, and goals as indicators of relative self-awareness. Also, we expand on their proximal causes related to personality–situation interactions and their emotional and motivational consequences. We discuss similarities among the three branches of research on motives, emotions, and goals and, lastly, provide an outlook for future research.