values and motives

2 downloads 0 Views 68KB Size Report
techniques) and self-report measures have consistently been quite low. ... Stimulation. Openness to Change. Self-. Transcendence. Conservation. Self-.
INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMMON STRUCTURE OF MOTIVES AND VALUES Wolfgang Bilsky, WWU Muenster, Germany

There has been a considerable lack of taxonomic clarity in motivational research until today. While Heckhausen (1989) referred to some early efforts of systematically categorising fundamental value orientations in anthropology, this line of reasoning has been without consequences for motivational research until today. In this presentation, an attempt is made to outline a general and parsimonious taxonomy for classifying motives. This is accomplished by stressing the conceptual similarity of motives and values and by referring to Schwartz’ (1992) values theory. The presentation is based on conceptual and empirical work conducted during the past three years (Bilsky, 1997a,b; 1998). First, a general definition of motives is presented in the form of a mapping sentence. Three central facets are distinguished. They are tentatively labelled 'awareness', 'openness to change' and 'focus of concern'. This definition lends itself to the specification of a structural model of motives which is outlined next. This model is the basis for delineating regional hypotheses. In these hypotheses both, the distinction of stable motivational domains and the impact of assessment procedures on the differentiation of motives is of focal interest. Having outlined the taxonomic approach, the tenability of these hypotheses is discussed by referring to findings from different studies.

1

Defining Motives

In motivational research, the lack of substantial correlations between different indicators claiming to cover the same motivational domain has caused considerable irritation in the past. Thus, correlations between fantasy-based indicators of motivation (derived from projective techniques) and self-report measures have consistently been quite low. Consequently, there has been a long debate on whether or not it is necessary to distinguish different kinds of motives, i.e., implicit from explicit motives, depending on the type of assessment instrument used. McClelland and his colleagues, for instance, contend that projective measures primarily cover affective aspects of the respective motivational domain while self-reports apply to the assessment of cognitive aspects only. In order not to confound both types they propose to refer to the first one as need indicators and to the second as value indicators (e.g., McClelland, 1985; Weinberger & McClelland, 1990). Independently of this debate, however, the advocates of both fantasy-based and self-report measures used similar labels for the motivational phenomena under study. These labels overlap to a great extent with the elements of the motivational facet that served as a theoretical frame of reference in our cross-cultural studies on the stability of value structures (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz, 1992). It seems quite reasonable, therefore, to assume that the same kind of structure found in value research should appear when analysing indicators of different motives. In addition, while the overall pattern of motivational structure is expected to arise independently of the type of measurement, it should also be possible to distinguish the different kinds of assessment instruments applied.

2

Following the Schwartz model of value structures (1992), the content of every motive can be sufficiently described by means of two facets that represent the two basic dimensions distinguished by Schwartz. These facets are labelled ‘openness to change’ and ‘focus of concern’. The position of every single motive in the resulting two-dimensional structure is then defined by the Cartesian product of the elements of the two facets. With regard to assessment, it is assumed that the degree to which a subject is conscious of the respective aim of measurement varies on a bipolar (continuous) dimension or facet. The poles of this facet are labelled ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ as in motivational research, thus indicating both the type of measurement (projective vs. self-report) and the extent to which measurement is accessible to rational control (see Figure 1).

A motive is an individual's

awareness ( implicit ( ... ( explicit

) ) orientation towards a goal )

that is determined by his / her tendency

to behave in an

=>

perceived as

Figure 1.

2

( ( (

openness to change open ... conservative

range ( very important ( ... ( unimportant

) ) )

and

focus of concern ( self-enhancing ( ... ( self-transcendent

) ) way )

) ) with respect to goal attainment. )

Mapping sentence on the structure of motives.

A Structural Model of Motives

Falling back on our own research on value structures, indicators of different motives are supposed to split up into wedgelike regions on a two-dimensional projection according to their similarities, i.e., according to their correspondence with respect to the two basic dimensions of motivational content. It should be noted that wedgelike regions normally result from one ‘polar facet’ (cf., Levy, 1985). In the above mapping sentence this facet has been substituted by the Cartesian product of the elements of two one-dimensional ordered facets representing the two basic dimensions of the revised Schwartz model, i.e., motivational content. With respect to assessment, two possibilities for partitioning motivational indicators according to a third - methods - facet (‘consciousness’ in the mapping sentence) suggest themselves: (1) Provided that a two-dimensional representation of similarities is sufficient for partitioning data both with respect to content and methods, this ‘consciousness’ facet should play a ‘modulating’ role that is superimposed on the polar partitioning of motivational content, thus resulting in a ‘radex’. (2) In a three-dimensional projection of facets, however, consciousness

3

should play an ‘axial’ role so that the overall partitioning of space takes the form of a ‘cylindrex’ as shown in Figure 2.

Self-Direction

Universalism

Stimulation

Benevolence

Hedonism explicit measures

implicit measures

Figure 2.

3

Conformity Achievement Power

Tradition

Security

Openness to Change

SelfTranscendence

SelfEnhancement

Conservation

Cylindrex with the wedgelike (polar) partitioning of motivational content and the ordered (axial) partitioning of assessment instruments, showing up on two different two-dimensional projections.

Structural analyses of Multi-Trait-Multi-Method matrices of motives and values

Several (re-) analyses of Multi-Trait-Multi-Method matrices of motives (Emmons & McAdams, 1991; King, 1995; Langens, 1996; Stumpf, Angleitner, Wieck, Jackson & Beloch-Till, 1985; cf. Bilsky, 1997a,b; 1998) and of joint correlation matrices of motives and values (Bilsky, 1997b; 1998) demonstrated that there exists considerable structural overlap between these two types of psychological constructs. This overlap usually showed up in form of a radex structure in two-dimensional partitioning of space. Three results seem to be of major interest. First and contrary to many former findings, these analyses in fact revealed a correspondence between different indicators of the same motive - independently of the measurement applied. This correspondence showed up in form of wedgelike partitions of motives. Second, the structural relationship between motives can be described by the same two basic dimensions underlying the Schwartz model of values structure (Schwartz, 1992). Third, our analyses suggest that there is no categorical but a gradual distinction between values and motives. This gradual distinction seems to be rooted in different levels of awareness. These levels are specified by the respective facet in the above mapping sentence and mirrored in an ordering of assessment procedures on a continuum from explicit to implicit.

4

While the aforementioned results are very clear and their interpretation does not cause any problems, the situation is somewhat more complicated when analysing data collected with the Multi-Motive-Grid (MMG; Schmalt, Sokolowski and Langens, 1994).

4

Structural Analyses Based on the Multi-Motive-Grid (MMG)

The Multi-Motive-Grid is a semi-projective assessment instrument devised to assess the three major motives ‘achievement’, ‘affiliation’, and ‘power’ (Schmalt et al., 1994). The MMG asks subjects to respond to a set of 14 slightly structured drawings (projective component) by answering a catalogue of 12 standardised statements. From these answers, several different motivational indicators can be delineated. First, and most importantly, the MMG differentiates between ‘hope-‘ and ‘fear-‘ components of the three motives (see also Heckhausen, 1989, for this distinction). These components are labelled hope of affiliation (AF+) versus fear of rejection (AF-), hope of achievement (AC+) versus fear of failure (AC-), and hope of control (PO+) versus fear of power (PO-). Each of them is computed from two separate indicators; thus, each component can either be represented by two separate indicators or by their aggregate as well. Second, by subtracting the (aggregated) fear-indicators from the (aggregated) hope-indicators of the respective motive, three ‘Net-‘ Indicators result, i.e., one for each of the three motives. Finally, aside from the aforementioned indicators, total scores for every motive can be used too. In the remainder of this chapter, findings from three studies using this instrument are sketched out briefly.

4.1

Study 1 (Schmalt & Sokolowski, 1995 1 )

In the first study, the MMG was applied together with a self-rating task and the German version of the Personality Research Form (PRF; Stumpf et al., 1985). The sample consisted of N=281 subjects (137 females, 143 males). Both, for the MMG and for the self-ratings, separate indicators for the ‘hope-‘ and the ‘fear-‘ components of the three motives achievement, affiliation, and power were computed; in addition, global indicators for these motives were derived from the PRF-data. The Multi-Trait-Multi-Method (MTMM) Matrix of the respective intercorrelations was then submitted to nonmetric multidimensional Scaling (SSA). The results of a three-dimensional SSA are presented in Figures 3 and 4. As can be seen, a perfect split emerged on dimensions 1 x 2 with respect to assessment. In addition, the different indicators of the three motives achievement, affiliation and power could be correctly separated on dimensions 2 x 3 (and on dimensions 1 x 3, too) with one exception only: the indicator of fear of rejection (AF-) as measured by the MMG did not show up in the affiliation domain but in achievement.

1

I am grateful to H.D. Schmalt and K. Sokolowski who put the correlation matrix from this first study at my disposal (personal communication of March 3, 1996)

5

AF+ AC+

Multi-Motive-Grid (MMG)

AC-

PO+

AF

POAF-

Dimension 2

Personality-Research Form (PRF) AF+ AC PO

Self-Ratings

AF-

AC+ PO+

ACPO-

Dimension 1

ΠAC

Figure 3.

{ AF

= MMG = Achievement

 PO

= PRF = Affiliation

= Self-Ratings = Power

Three-dimensional SSA of the MTMM-Matrix reported by Schmalt and Sokolowski, 1995; partitioning of assessment on dimensions 1 x 2.

Achievement

AC AC+

ACAF-

Dimension 3

AC+ PO+

AC-

PO-

PO+ AF+

PO

PO-

Power Affiliation AFAF

AF+

Dimension 2

Π+

Figure 4.

= MMG = hope

{ -

= PRF = fear



= Self-Ratings

Three-dimensional SSA of the MTMM-Matrix reported by Schmalt and Sokolowski, 1995; partitioning of motives on dimensions 2 x 3.

6

4.2

Study 2 (Schmalt, Sokolowski & Langens, 1996 2 )

In the second study, the same assessment instruments were used as in study 1 (i.e.,

MMG, PRF, and self-ratings) for collecting data from a sample of N=110. Nonmetric Similarity Structure Analyses were computed for the different indicators of achievement, affiliation and power. Figures 5 and 6 portray the results of the threedimensional solution with PRF-scores, MMG-Net-scores and component-scores from self-ratings. Here, a perfect split of both, motives (dimensions 2 x 3) and assessment (dimensions 1 x 2 and 1 x 3) could be achieved. This time, the partitioning of indicators matches the typical split of a cylindrex as hypothesised in the above model. It needs mentioning, however, that the MDS-solutions of the remaining motivational indicators were markedly less clear.

Achievement AC+ AFAC

AC AC-

Dimension 3

AF PO AF

PO-

AF+

PO+ PO

Affiliation

Power

Dimension 2

ΠAC +

Figure 5.

2

= MMG = Achievement = hope

{ AF -

= PRF = Affiliation = fear

 PO

= Self-Ratings = Power

Three-dimensional SSA of the MTMM-Matrix reported by Schmalt, Sokolowski and Langens, 1996; partitioning of motives on dimensions 2 x 3.

I am grateful to H.D. Schmalt , K. Sokolowski and T. Langens who also put the data of this second study at my disposal (personal communication of February 12, 1997)

7

PRF

Self-Ratings

MMG

AC+ AFAC

AC-

AC

Dimension 3

AF PO AF

PO-

AF+

PO+ PO

Dimension 1

ΠAC +

= MMG = Achievement = hope

Figure 6.

4.3

{ AF -

= PRF = Affiliation = fear

 PO

= Self-Ratings = Power

Three-dimensional SSA of the MTMM-Matrix reported by Schmalt, Sokolowski and Langens, 1996; partitioning of assessment on dimensions 1 x 3.

Study 3 (Klocke, 1998)

The final study to be reported was conducted by Klocke (1998). Central to his study was the question whether values as measured with the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and motives as measured with the MMG share one common structure. In this investigation, values were assessed with a shortened version of the SVS, using only those 44 items which had proved to be culturally stable indicators of the respective value domains in a series of studies in culturally diverse countries (cf. Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). Motives were measured by means of the MMG, applying the instrument in the same way as in studies 1 and 2. A total of N=285 subjects participated in this third study. A two-dimensional SSA of the 2 x 6 indicators of the three motives achievement, affiliation and power, each characterised by a hope and by a fear component, resulted in the split shown in Figure 7. Obviously, a perfect separation of all components could be achieved. This split, however, does not conform to the wedgelike partitioning hypothesised above. As a second step, the three Net-indicators of achievement, affiliation and power and the ten different value domains represented by scale scores (Schwartz, 1992) were submitted to a joint analysis. While the assessment instruments could be perfectly separated in this analysis, motives did not show up in the respective value regions as predicted by our model. Therefore, Klocke (1998) ran a third analysis, taking only those three value domains (benevolence, achievement and power) into account which are supposed to match the three basic motives affiliation, achievement and power. Analyses were based on the respective value items (12) and motivational indicators (12). With these restrictions, the resulting structure of values and motives fits our expectations as shown in Figure 8.

8

Achievement (Hope) Hope of Success 2

Fear of Power 2

Hope of Success 1

Dimension 2

Fear of Power 1

Hope of Control 2 Hope of Control 1

Fear of Rejection 2

Fear of Rejection 1

Affiliation

Hope of Affiliation 2

Fear of Failure 1

Hope of Affiliation 1

Fear of Failure 2

Achievement (Fear) Dimension 1

Figure 7.

Two-dimensional SSA of the three basic motives achievement, affiliation, and power, distinguishing hope- and fear-components (cf., Klocke, 1998). social power

Self-Enhancement

influential authority

Dimension 2

Achievement and Power successful capable ambitious

Achievement and Power PO1+ AC1+ AC2+ PO2+

wealth AF1+

SVS

PO1AF2+

MMG

Self-Transcendence

PO2AC1-

AC2AF2AF1-

responsible

Benevolence

loyal

honest

Affiliation

helpful forgiving

Dimension 1 SVS AC +

Figure 8.

= = =

Schwartz Value Survey achievement hope

MMG AF -

= Multi-Motive-Grid = affiliation = fear

PO = Power

Two-dimensional SSA of 12 motivational indicators (MMG) and 12 values (SVS) (cf., Klocke, 1998).

9

5

Discussion

Comparing the somehow mixed results achieved with the Multi-Motive-Grid to those from other analyses (Bilsky, 1997a,b; 1998), some preliminary speculations over possible reasons for the observed discrepancies come to mind. First, and probably most importantly, the distinction of ‘fear-’ and ‘hope-’components is a unique feature of the MMG. It is not shared with other assessment instruments usually applied in motivational research, except with selfratings as used in the studies presented here. Supplementary analyses of the data from study 2 revealed that hope- and fear-components behave differently with respect to structure: While the hope-components formed common wedges with the respective motivational indicators from other instruments as predicted by the above model, fear-components did not. Thus, an incomplete radex emerged, separating the hope-components both, with respect to assessment and motivational content, the fear-components, however, only with respect to assessment. Obviously, there is some need for conceptually clarifying the difference between both components. Second, the MMG markedly deviates from the typical item-format used in motivational research. On the other hand, motivational indicators from different instruments are only slightly correlated. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that differences due to assessment clearly dominate the structural analyses presented here.

6

References

Bilsky, W. (1997a). Vergleichende Strukturanalysen von Motiven und Werten. Münster: Berichte aus dem Psychologischen Institut IV. Bilsky, W. (1997b). Strukturelle Beziehungen zwischen Motiven und Werten: Weitere Hinweise auf die Tragfähigkeit eines integrativen Modells. Münster: Berichte aus dem Psychologischen Institut IV. Bilsky, W. (1998). Values and motives. Paper presented at the International Research Workshop Values: Psychological structure, behavioral outcomes, and inter-generational transmission. Münster: Berichte aus dem Psychologischen Institut IV. Emmons, R.A. & McAdams, D.P. (1991). Personal strivings and motive dispositions: exploring the links. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 648-654. Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln. Berlin: Springer. King, L.A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal memories: relations of measures of human motivation. Journal of Personality, 63, 985-1007. Klocke, J. (1998). Strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten von Werten und Motiven. Unveröffentlichte Wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit zur Diplom-Hauptprüfung im Fach Psychologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Langens, T. (1996). Eine Untersuchung zur Auswirkung von Inkongruenzen zwischen impliziten Motiven und expliziten Motivationen auf verschiedene Dimensionen des emotionalen Wohlbefindens. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit im Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften, Bergische Universität - Gesamthochschule Wuppertal. Levy, S. (1985). Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory (pp. 59-96). New York: Springer. McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, Ill: Scott. Schmalt, H.D., Sokolowski, K., & Langens, T. (1994). Die Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur Messung der Motive Leistung, Macht und Anschluß mit der Gitter-Technik. Wuppertal: Wuppertaler Psychologische Berichte, Bd. 5.

10

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. Schwartz, S.H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116. Stumpf, H., Angleitner, A., Wieck, T., Jackson, D.N., & Beloch-Till, H. (1985). Deutsche Personality Research Form (PRF). Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Weinberger, J. & McClelland, D.C. (1990). Cognitive versus traditional motivational models: irreconcilable or complementary? In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 2 (pp. 562-597). New York: Guilford.