Motivated behavior in intimate relationships: Comparing the predictive value of motivational variables

Abstract

Motivational variables are considered fundamental factors influencing the occurrence of behavior. The current study compared different types of motivational variables (implicit and explicit motive dispositions, motivation as states and as aggregated person-level variables) in their ability to predict communal and agentic behavior reports in intimate relationships. 510 individuals completed measures of dispositional communion and agency motives and participated in a dyadic experience sampling study with five assessments per day across four weeks. They reported on their momentary communal and agentic motivation, as well as on their own and their partner’s behaviors. All examined types of motivational variables predicted certain behavior reports on the between-person or within-person level and had incremental effects beyond the other motivational variables in at least one motive domain. Directly replicating and conceptually extending prior research, the effects of motivational states and their aggregates were consistently found across behavioral outcomes, across self- and partner-reports and across the motive domains of communion and agency. Using the example of motivational states, the general value of assessing within-person variables for psychological phenomena in ESM-designs is discussed.

Motivational Interdependence in Couple Relationships

“…Further, the current findings add to existing evidence of the relevance of both implicit and explicit motives for relationship functioning (e.g., Hagemeyer et al, 2013a ; Zygar-Hoffmann et al, 2020b ). In the current investigation, both implicit and explicit communal motives predicted communal behavior in interaction with perceived communal partner behavior.…”

“…The present research used data from an experience sampling study with German couples. The data are available as a scientific use-file (Zygar-Hoffmann et al, 2020a ) and have been used in previous publications (Pusch et al, 2020 ; Zygar-Hoffmann and Schönbrodt, 2020 ; Zygar-Hoffmann et al, 2020b ; Schönbrodt et al, 2021 ). However, none of these previous publications addressed the hypotheses tested in the present research, but focused on other hypotheses.…”

“…Partner-related communal motives are defined as relatively stable evaluative dispositions for classes of relationship situations that share communal characteristics such as experiences of emotional and physical closeness to the partner, companionship, or feeling as part of a dyad (Hagemeyer and Neyer, 2012 ). Previous studies have shown that communal motives are positively associated with relationship quality (Hagemeyer et al, 2013a , b ; Czikmantori et al, 2018 ; Zygar et al, 2018 ), relationship stability (Hagemeyer et al, 2013b ), communal partner behavior (Zygar et al, 2018 ; Zygar-Hoffmann et al, 2020b ), and positively biased partner perception (Pusch et al, 2020 , 2021 ). However, the MIC model can be applied to other partner-related motives as well.…”

“…Explicit and implicit motives are important predictors of relationship functioning. They are associated with how people interact with their partners (Zygar et al, 2018 ; Zygar-Hoffmann et al, 2020b ), how they perceive their partners (Pusch et al, 2020 , 2021 ), how satisfied they are with their relationships (Hagemeyer and Neyer, 2012 ; Hagemeyer et al, 2013b ; Zygar et al, 2018 ), and how long their relationships last (Hagemeyer et al, 2013a ).…”

Capturing life and its fluctuations: Experience sampling and daily diary studies in studying within-person variability

“…For example, researchers use dyads to examine how daily proactivity can be transmitted between colleagues (Demerouti & Peeters, 2017), how working to change one's relationship influences its quality (Young, Curran, & Totenhagen, 2013), and how providing support affects caregivers' and patients' affect (Kroemeke, Knoll, & Sobczyk-Kruszelnicka, 2019). In this Special Issue an example of dyadic design can be found in the paper by Zygar-Hoffmann et al (2020) where participants reported on their own and their partner's behaviors.…”