Motivational properties of personality conflict.

Abstract

A number of S-R theorists have suggested that conflict induces a drive state, assumed to have energizing properties, over and above the original ones motivating conflict behavior in a given situation. Brown and Farber (1968) have reviewed a number of supportive studies indicating that conflict may result in an energization of ongoing behavior and that escape from conflict is rewarding. A method for assessing personality conflict in a number of need areas has been proposed by Worell and Worell (196S). They assume that conflict is indicated when an individual's stated behavior choices differ from his stated behavior preferences, for he is indicating that competing dispositions are replacing supposedly preferred alternatives. The relatively nonconflicted individual, on the other hand, tends to use the behaviors that he states he prefers. The Conflict Scale (Hays & Worell, 1967), designed to measure this preference-behavior differential, is composed of modified scales from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The present study employed this scale to assess the effects of conflict in the need achievement area on the learning of noncompetitive and competitive paired associates under achievement-oriented conditions. The Ss were male college students divided into highand low-conflict groups, each composed of 14 Ss, on the basis of their Conflict Scale scores. All of the 5s were above the median in achievement preference. The Ss were individually tested on noncompetitive and competitive lists of paired

Affective arousal and energization properties of positive and negative stimuli.

“…Performance on the noncompetitional and competitional paired-associate (PA) lists of Spence, Farber, and McFann (1956) has been used extensively to investigate levels of various affective and motivational states considered analogs of the Hull-Spence drive state (Amoroso & Walters, 1969;Cottrell, Kittle, & Wack, 1967;Lipsitt & Spears, 1965;Lombardo, Libkuman, & Weiss 1972;Smith, 1969;Spence & Spence, 1966, Waterman, 1969. Performance on the noncompetitional pairs is facilitated by increased arousal level, while performance on the competitional pairs is hindered.…”