1. Group Norms, Personal Priorities and Temporal Fidelity
Aspects of Implicit–Explicit Motive Congruence and Implications for Well-Being
Chris C. Martin, Amanda K. Fuller, & Todd M. Thrash
Measuring Implicit-Explicit Congruence
A total of 309 undergraduates, split across
two samples, participated in a weekly diary
study spanning eight weeks.
‣ Implicit–explicit congruence (consistency)
varies across persons, but measuring
congruence accurately is challenging.
‣ Currently, the accepted method is to model
congruence normatively. A person is highly
congruent, for instance, if his or her z score is
+1 on implicit motivation and +1 on explicit
motivation.
‣ However, normative measurement is
arbitrary and subject to sampling
variability. Moreover, this approach does
not account for the unique personality
structure of each individual.
Relating Implicit–Explicit Motive
Congruence to Well-Being
‣ People who are motivationally congruent
Measures
‣ Implicit Motives: Measured using the MultiMotive Grid (MMG-S: Sokolowski, Schmalt,
Langens, & Puca, 2000), a semi-projective
measure.
motivational statements from Sheldon, Elliot,
Kim, and Kasser (2001) (e.g., "This week I
have felt an impulse or desire to feel capable
in what I do.”)
‣ Well-Being: Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988); Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS;
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin (1985),
Subjective vitality scale (Ryan & Fredrick,
2007); and Self-actualization scale (Sheldon
et al., 2001).
Computing Congruence Scores
‣ As a result, they should experience greater
standardized, and the absolute difference of z
scores was computed. For configural and
temporal congruence, HLM residuals were
used.
‣ The lack of consistency may arise from
measurement problems. Better
measurements may yield consistent
results.
Proposed Measurements
Congruence measurement can be based on:
1. Personal Priorities (configural
congruence): This method accounts for the
relative strengths of internal motives.
2. Temporal Fidelity (temporal
congruence): This method accounts for
covariation of motivations over time.
Incongruent
Achievement
Affiliation
Power
‣ For normative congruence, scores were
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). doi:
10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). doi: 10.1111/j.14676494.1997.tb00326.x
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). doi: 10.1037/00223514.80.2.325
Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H.-D., Langens, T. A., & Puca, R. M. (2000). doi:
10.1207/S15327752JPA740109
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). doi: 10.1037/00223514.54.6.1063
Incongruent
Congruent
Incongruent
Congruent
Ach
Aff
Pow
Time
Normative congruence
was an inconsistent
predictor of wellbeing. It predicted
mean well-being in
Sample 1, but not
Sample 2.
Normative congruence
had low predictive
validity. Thus,
measuring congruence
normatively may be
suboptimal.
The average
participant was
configurally
incongruent, with
much variance
across participants.
Configural congruence
robustly predicted
mean well-being and
growth in well-being
in both samples.
Among people with high
configural congruence,
the highest amount of
energy is devoted to the
most satisfying pursuits.
Thus, it may cause
greater well-being.
The average
participant was
temporally
congruent in all
domains, with little
variance across
participants.
Temporal congruence
consistently predicted
lower well-being
across both samples.
Uniquely among the
congruence types, it
positively and robustly
predicted NA.
Excessive temporal
congruence may
indicate an inefficient,
impulsive diffusion of
effort, instead of
consistent commitment
to goals. Thus, it may
cause greater ill-being.
Time
Explicit
‣ Latent growth curve models were used to
References
The average
participant was
incongruent, and
congruence scores
varied greatly
across participants.
Implicit
Data Analysis
examine the relationship of each type of
congruence with the intercept and slope of
individual well-being.
Individual Differences Discussion
Congruent
‣ Explicit Motives: Agree-disagree scales with
should pursue explicit goals that are aligned
with their internal appetitive structure.
well-being . The literature tends to support
this hypothesis, but results are mixed.
Overall
Personal Priorities
(Configural)
conscious (explicit) systems of motivation.
Temporal Fidelity
(Temporal)
‣ People have unconscious (implicit) and
Results
Explicit
Methods
Comparison to Group
Norm (Normative)
Introduction
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA
Implicit
Sample 1
Sample 2
Correlations
Conclusion
Mean
Standardized Path
Coefficients
Slope (r) Mean Slope (β)
Correlations
Mean
Standardized Path
Coefficients
Slope (r) Mean Slope (β)
Normative
PA
The three types of congruence were distinct, and
they played different roles in predicting well-being.
Given the weakness of normative measurement,
measuring configural and temporal congruence
may be more useful in future research.
.24**
-.15
.15*
-.24
.14
NA
-.05
-.20
-.06
-.12
-.07
.17
-.07
.10
SWLS
.24**
.21
.20**
.10
-.01
-.03
-.08
-.01
Vitality
.23**
.03
.16*
-.07
.11
-.03
.31**
-.03
.15†
Self-actualization .31***
.03
.02
.08
.07
.04
Configural
PA
.53***
.38*
.43***
.44*
.74***
NA
-.04
-.44*
.07
-.35†
-.09
.16
-.04
.26†
SWLS
.34***
.58***
.20*
.56***
.58***
.02
.58***
-.04
Vitality
.40***
.53*
.30***
.51*
.63***
.39**
.43***
.39**
.64***
Self-actualization .43***
.75***
.63***
.34*
.63***
.33*
Longitudinal
PA
-.36***
-.12
-.21**
.03
-.16†
NA
.26**
.30†
.28**
.18
.16†
.32*
.16†
.38**
SWLS
-.34***
-.21
-.27***
.00
-.21*
-.18
-.05
.19†
Vitality
-.29**
-.29
-.18*
-.11
-.15†
-.16
-.21*
-.16
-.16†
Self-actualization -.21*
.05
.02
-.09
.01
.00