Are Implicit and Explicit Motive Measures Statistically Independent? A Fair and Balanced Test Using the Picture Story Exercise and a Cue- and Response-Matched Questionnaire Measure

Abstract

Previous studies that have examined the relationship between implicit and explicit motive measures have consistently found little variance overlap between both types of measures regardless of thematic content domain (i.e., power, achievement, affiliation). However, this independence may be artifactual because the primary means of measuring implicit motives--content-coding stories people write about picture cues--are incommensurable with the primary means of measuring explicit motives: having individuals fill out self-report scales. To provide a better test of the presumed independence between both types of measures, we measured implicit motives with a Picture Story Exercise (PSE; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) and explicit motives with a cue- and response-matched questionnaire version of the PSE (PSE-Q) and a traditional measure of explicit motives, the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1984) in 190 research participants. Correlations between the PSE and the PSE-Q were small and mostly nonsignificant, whereas the PSE-Q showed significant variance overlap with the PRF within and across thematic domains. We conclude that the independence postulate holds even when more commensurable measures of implicit and explicit motives are used.

An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The Unified Motive Scales

“…Additional scales were included which have been used to measure one of the big three motives (i.e., PRF aggression; the PSE-Q inventory, Schultheiss et al, 2009; the Need to Belong Scale, Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2006; power and achievement from the Motive Profile for the Zurich Model, MPZM, Schönbrodt, Unkelbach, & Spinath, 2009). These scales should demonstrate convergent validity to the UMS.…”

“…PRF aggression scale (Stumpf et al, 1985). This scale was included as it has also been used to tap into the power motive (e.g., Schultheiss, Yankova, Dirlikov, & Schad, 2009). (Schultheiss et al, 2009).…”

The Pictorial Attitude Implicit Association Test for need for affiliation

“…However, as mentioned earlier, motive-grid measures are not convincingly validated as valid implicit motives measures (Schultheiss et al, 2009). Thus, it remains uncertain to what extent each picture we used in the PA-IAT represents implicit need for affiliation (and not the explicit need for affiliation).…”

“…According to Kehr (2004), studies with management Running Head: ASSESSMENT OF NEED FOR AFFILIATION 13 samples caused unacceptable drop-out rates on the PSE. Therefore, he decided to use the MultiMotive-Grid (Sokolowski, Schmalt,Langens, & Puca, 2000) to assess implicit motives even though recent research puts the validity of grid techniques as measures of implicit motives into questions (Schultheiss et al, 2009). Perhaps, the PA-IAT can serve as a valid and time-efficient alternative to content-coding techniques.…”

“…However, attempts to replace content based scoring techniques with objective and easy-to-use questionnaire measures of implicit motives had limited success (see e.g. Schultheiss, Yankova, Dirlikov, & Schad, 2009, for a detailed discussion) and, in fact, reinforced the premise that implicit and explicit motives can best be seen as distinct, but related constructs, each activated by different classes of incentive, and each influencing different types of behavior.…”