Study Brunstein et al. (1998): study DE 1993
- Public
- University students, Erlangen, Germany,199?
- Sample
- Respondents
- N = 98
- Non Response
- Assessment
-
Questionnaire: Paper & Pencil Interview (PAPI)
And structured mood diary.
Correlate
- Authors's Label
- Predominant motive disposition: agentic over communal
- Our Classification
-
-
- Error Estimates
- Protocols were scored by two independent coders. Category agreement was 94% for achievement, 92% for power, and 95% for affiliation-intimacy
- Distribution
- M=0,00, SD= 1.57
- Operationalization
- TEST: Picture-story exercise: Ss were asked to write imaginative stories to each of six picture cues. In a relaxed atmosphere, they were allowed 5 min to write each story. The pictures depicted, in order administrated, a man sitting at an office desk, tow female scientists working in a laboratory, a ship's captain talking with another man, two people sitting on a park bench, a man and a woman on a trapeze, and a man, a woman, an a guitar player in a nightclub.
CODING: Ss verbal protocols were content coded for 3 kinds of imagery in running text:
- power
- achivement
- affiliation-intimacy
Expressed in mentioning per 1000 words
DERIVED MOTIVATION SCORES
A need for agency = achievement + power
B need for communion = afilliation-intimacy
C predominant motive disposition = A - B, converted to z-scores
Observed Relation with Happiness
- Positive among Ss reporting agentic goal
progress B = +.31 (01)
- Negative among Ss reporting communal goal
progress B =-.21 (01)
Difference in average daily mood between Ss high and low on progress in agentic goals (1 SD above or below mean, means expressed in z-scores)
- high-progress Ss high on agentic motivation
feel better
- low-progress Ss high on agentic motivation
feel worse
- little difference in mood among Ss low in
agentic motivation, irrespective of progress
in agentic goals
Unaffected by
- gender
- personality (extraversion, neuroticism)