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
- Communal need
- Our Classification
-
-
- Error Estimates
- Protocols were scored by two independent coders. Category agreement was 95% for affiliation-intimacy
- Distribution
- M=11.80, SD=5.08
- 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 motive imagery in running text:
- power
- achivement
- affiliation-intimacy
Expressed in mentioning per 1000 words
DERIVED SCORE:
Communal need = afilliation-intimacy
Observed Relation with Happiness
- negative among Ss reporting progress in
agentic goals: B = -.21 (05)
- positive among Ss reporting progress in
communal goals: B = +.17 (05)
- high-need Ss who report high progress in
communal goals feel better
- high-need Ss who report low progress in
communal goals feel worse
- low-need Ss differ little in mood,
irrespective of progress in communal goals
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
All results similar for males and females