In this article, we introduce the Multi-Motive Grid (MMG), a new diagnostic tool to measure motives with respect to their hope and fear components. The MMG combines features of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with features of self-report questionnaires. Similar to the TAT, a set of 14 pictures representing a balanced set of achievement-arousing, affiliation-arousing, and power-arousing situations is presented together with a set of statements representing important motivational states. Six motive scores can be calculated: hope of success (HS) and fear of failure (FF) for the achievement motive, hope of affiliation (HA) and fear of rejection (FR) for the affiliation motive, and hope of power (HP) and fear of power (FP) for the power motive. Results of factor analyses suggest a 3-factor solution, with a general fear factor (FF, FR, FP), a factor combining the hope components of achievement and power (HS and HP), and a third factor representing HA, but the 6 a priori factors also reflect a sound structural model. Reliability data show that the internal consistency and retest reliability of the MMG scales satisfy traditional standards. External validity of the MMG has been established in all 3 motive domains. Three separate studies document that (a) individuals high in resultant achievement motivation perform better and report more flow experience, (b) individuals high in resultant power motivation profit more from a leadership training program, and (c) individuals high in resultant affiliation motivation recollect more highly memorable affiliative themes.
The present research is based on the assumption that people differ in their responsiveness to incentives and threats. In two experiments we examined whether the trait corresponding to the responsiveness to threats (avoidance motive) and the trait corresponding to the responsiveness to incentives (approach motive) influence voluntary motor behavior toward or away from stimuli. In Experiment 1, stimuli consisted of positive and negative words within a lexical decision task. Participants moved their arms backward in order to withdraw from the stimuli or forward in order to approach them. In Experiment 2, participants responded with forward or backward arm movements to neutral sounds coming from behind or in front of them. The main dependent variable was the strength of the approach and avoidance movements. In both experiments this variable was related to participants' avoidance-motive disposition but not to their approach-motive disposition. Avoidance-motivated individuals generally showed more forceful avoidance movements than approach movements. There was no effect of stimulus valence on the strength of the movements in Experiment 1. Furthermore, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that it is not the physical direction (forward or backward) but rather the movement's effect of distance reduction (approach) or distance increase (avoidance) in regard to the stimulus that defines a movement as an approach or an avoidance movement.
Drawing on current goal theories of motivation, the authors investigated participants’ spontaneous thoughts in pre- and postdecisional action phases. In contrast with the research originally initiated by Heckhausen and his coworkers, the authors used a repeated-measures design and considered individual differences in achievement motivation. Participants were given a choice between two tasks. They had to report their thoughts twice, before and after they had made the decision. Thought contents were analyzed according to the theory of action phases. The data clearly indicate that spontaneous thoughts reflect different states of mind in pre- and postdecisional action phases. Furthermore, an optimistic bias in thought contents was found, which was, however, moderated by the achievement motive. Success-motivated participants were optimistic after and pessimistic before decision making. The reverse was true for failure-motivated participants. The results were interpreted as an important extension of the achievement-motive nomological network.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.