Are Implicit Motives “Visible” to Well-Acquainted Others?

Abstract

In this study, we compared self-ratings and informant ratings of personality as predictors of implicit motives, need for achievement (nAch), and need for affiliation (nAff). A total of 120 participants wrote creative stories to 5 images from the Picture Story Exercise (Smith, 1992 Smith, C. P., Feld, S. C. and Franz, C. E. 1992. “Methodological considerations: Steps in research employing content analysis systems”. In Motivation and personally: Handbook for thematic content analysis, Edited by: Smith, C. P. 515–536. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) and completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992 Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]). Three well-acquainted informants rated each participant's personality with the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999 John, O. P. and Srivastava, S. 1999. “The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives”. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research, , 2nd ed., Edited by: Pervin, L. A. and John, O. P. 102–138. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]) and Saucier's (1994) Saucier, G. 1994. Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63: 506–516. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] Mini-Markers. Consistent with the study hypotheses, peer ratings of Conscientiousness significantly predicted nAch scores after controlling for word count and self-rated Conscientiousness. Contrary to hypotheses, peer ratings and self-ratings in all 5 domains did not significantly predict nAff scores. The findings are considered in the interest of bridging the gap between trait and motive concepts in personality assessment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.