Motive Congruence and Interpersonal Identity Status

Motive Congruence and Interpersonal

Identity Status

Jan Hofer, Holger Busch, Athanasios Chasiotis, and

Florian Kiessling

University of Osnabruck, Germany

ABSTRACT This article examines the relationship between interper-sonal ego identity formation and congruence of self-attributed and im-plicit affiliation motives. A TAT-type picture-story test, the PersonalityResearch Form, and the Extended Objective Measure of Ego IdentityStatus were administered to 177 participants to assess data on affiliationmotivation and interpersonal identity formation. According to a scoringsystem developed by Winter, the picture stories were coded for need forAffiliation. Analyses revealed that motive congruence is significantly as-sociated with participants’ level of identity achievement and identityforeclosure in the interpersonal domain. Such a relationship could not beidentified for identity diffusion and moratorium.

There has been a long debate in research on motivation amongproponents of traditional, implicit, and more cognitively oriented

approaches concerning the adequate assessment of motives. Thisargument might have been based on the fact that, in general, no

relationship between implicit and explicit (self-attributed) motivemeasures could be established in empirical research on motivation

We would like to thank Daniel Russell and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful

and detailed comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Finally, we very much

appreciate the statistical comments on regression analysis provided by Thomas

Staufenbiehl.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jan Hofer, Cross-

cultural Life-span Psychology Research group, University of Osnabruck, Department

of Human Sciences, Seminarstr. 20, D-49069 Osnabruck, Germany. E-mail: Jan.

[email protected]

Journal of Personality 74:2, April 2006r 2006, Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006, Blackwell Publishing, Inc.DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00383.x

(e.g., King, 1995; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953).

Much of this argument and the consequent critical attention of im-plicit methods of measurement (e.g., Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Entw-

isle, 1972), however, may have been related to the mistake in callingtwo distinct motive measures by the same name (McClelland, Ko-

estner, & Weinberger, 1989; Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2005). Re-search on motivation yielded substantial evidence supporting the

assumption that there are two separate motivational systems thatdevelop relatively independent of each other (see McClelland et al.,1989). Investigation of the factors underlying the interplay of im-

plicit and explicit motives has only just begun. Nonetheless, recentstudies have shown that individuals differ in congruence of implicit

and explicit motives (e.g., Brunstein, 2001; Thrash & Elliot, 2002).Therefore, Thrash and Elliot (2002) suggested that research should

continue to identify variables or integrative processes that may beassociated with an alignment of the two types of motives. In this

article, we examine whether an individual’s interpersonal identitydevelopment is associated with a congruence of implicit and explicit

affiliation motives.

Two Distinct Motivational Systems

According to McClelland et al. (1989; Weinberger & McClelland,

1990), implicit and explicit motives are acquired at different times inontogeny and may be related to different kinds of information

processing (Schultheiss, 2001). Implicit motives represent highly gen-eralized preferences derived from emotional experiences between the

individual and his or her environment during early, preverbal child-hood (McClelland, 1987). In contrast, the explicit system of moti-

vation embodies cognitive schemas such as values and goals that aredependent on the representational capacities acquired during thedevelopment of language-mediated cognitive structures (e.g., self-

concept; Weinberger & McClelland, 1990). Although the two typesof motives are effective in generating behavior and directing it to-

wards the pursuit of specific goals (e.g., Cantor, 1994; McClelland,1987), they are linked to different types of behavior (deCharms,

Morrison, Reitman, & McClelland, 1955; McClelland, 1980). Im-plicit motives that are responsive to natural incentives in the envi-

ronment have long-term effects on ‘‘operant’’ behavioral trends overtime (e.g., McAdams & Vaillant, 1982; McClelland & Pilon, 1983).

512 Hofer et al.

In contrast, self-attributed motives provoke respondent behavior to

social incentives, particularly in situations in which people cogni-tively decide on a course of action (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970;

Patten & White, 1977). Self-attributed motives are defined as con-scious entities (Emmons & Kaiser, 1996): People are able to reflect

consciously on their motivations and attributions. Thus, they arebest assessed with direct self-report questionnaires (Biernat, 1989;

McClelland et al., 1989). By comparison, implicit motives, that areintrospectively less accessible, but clearly express themselves in in-

dividuals’ fantasies, are best measured by fantasy-based methods(Biernat, 1989; Weinberger & McClelland, 1990). Picture-story tests,based on the Thematic Apperception Test, originally introduced by

Murray (1943), have been routinely used to assess implicit motives(e.g., Atkinson & Litwin, 1960; McAdams & Vaillant, 1982; McClel-

land & Pilon, 1983; Peterson & Stewart, 1993; Winter, 1973).

Congruence Between Implicit and Self-Attributed Motives

Referring to divergent findings on the relationship of the two typesof motives, Emmons (1997) considered the identification of factors

that influence the degree of congruence between implicit and self-attributed motives to be a main challenge that should be addressed infuture research. Thrash and Elliot (2002) named three factors that

could affect findings on correspondence of motives: substance ofmotive constructs (e.g., motive domains), methodological issues

(e.g., comparability of methods), and moderator variables such asindividual differences and contextual variables. Concerning the lat-

ter, Thrash and Elliot (2002) showed for the motivational domain ofachievement that individuals’ degree of motive congruence is asso-

ciated with their degree of self-determination. The suggestion that itis valuable to include personality characteristics when studying

human motivation was also supported by research conducted byBrunstein (2001) that provided evidence that the congruence of self-attributed and implicit motives is mediated by self-regulation

processes (see also Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). Moreover, motivecongruence also seems to be related to emotional well-being (Brun-

stein, Maier, & Schultheiss, 1999; Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grass-mann, 1998) and life satisfaction (Hofer & Chasiotis, 2003). Ryan,

Deci, and Grolnick (1995) argued that individuals may perceive mo-tive-congruent goals to be self-generated and fully integrated

Motive Congruence and Interpersonal Identity 513

strivings that promote the satisfaction of needs. In contrast, a strong

commitment to explicit motives that may be at odds with one’s im-plicit motivational orientation could inhibit the satisfaction of

implicit motives and ultimately result in emotional distress (Winter,1996). Miron and McClelland (1979) have already suggested that

systematic experience based on self-examination may facilitate analignment between the two types of motives (see also Bucci, 1997;

McClelland et al., 1989; Schultheiss & Brunstein, 1999, 2002). Brun-stein et al. (1999) assumed that congruence between an individual’simplicit and self-attributed motives is not preprogrammed onto-

genetically but instead is something that might be achieved duringthe course of individual development. One could presume that the

formation of a stable and coherent self-identity might be associatedwith an alignment of implicit needs and self-attributed motives,

values, and life goals.

Development of Ego Identity

Based on Erikson’s psychosocial theory (1950, 1959, 1968), the con-cept of ego identity was further elaborated and empirically substan-

tiated by numerous studies in recent decades (see Adams, 1999).Erikson (1968) defined identity as a sense of sameness and continuityboth within oneself and of one’s meaning for significant others, the

latter being what Marcia (1993a) called the relational roots of iden-tity. Among several approaches to operationalizing identity forma-

tion for measurement (e.g., Constantinople, 1969; Rasmussen, 1964),Marcia’s identity status paradigm (1966, 1980) became widely ac-

cepted and proved to be very fruitful in research (see Schwartz, 2001;Waterman, 1988). Marcia (1980), who interpreted identity as a self-

constructed, dynamic organization of drives, abilities, beliefs, andindividual history, postulated two principal psychological dimen-sions or processes in identity formation: exploration/crisis and com-

mitment. The former refers to the search for a complete sense of selfand is characterized by an examination of and experimentation with

different directions and beliefs (Marcia, 1994). Commitment, on theother hand, determines the degree of personal investment in the

chosen alternatives and depends on the defined and stable adherenceto goals, values, and beliefs. Based on these two psychological di-

mensions, four types of identity statuses are identified: achievement,moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion (Marcia, 1980). Identity

514 Hofer et al.

achievement is characterized by a meaningful commitment to per-

sonal values and goals after having experienced a period of explor-ation/crisis. Moratorium identity is the state of active exploration

with commitment to values and goals not having yet been reached.Foreclosure identity is defined by a strong commitment to values and

life goals; however, commitment is not a consequence of explora-tion/crisis but rather an adoption of values and life goals from par-

ents and other significant persons. Commitments are not tested forindividual fit (Adams, 1999). Finally, identity diffusion is character-

ized by a relative absence of exploration and commitment.Research on ego identity statuses within the domains of ideolog-

ical, occupational, and interpersonal values mainly relies on two

different types of methods, semistructured interviews (observerbased; Cramer, 2000), originally introduced by Marcia (1966) but

constantly elaborated and revised (e.g., Grotevant & Cooper, 1981;Marcia & Archer, 1993), and self-report questionnaires (e.g., Benn-

ion & Adams, 1986; Melgosa, 1987; Phinney, 1992). Adams (1999)presumed that the interview technique should be applied particularly

when idiographic, in-depth information on individuals’ identity de-velopment was required for data analysis. In contrast, self-reportmethods allow meaningful comparisons among participants based

on self-evaluations against standards presented by a uniform set ofitems (Kroger, 1993).

Within the framework of Marcia’s concept of ego identity devel-opment, hundreds of studies were conducted in recent decades.

Among major topics in research on identity (e.g., developmental as-pects, gender-related issues, family and contextual correlates; for re-

views see Adams, 1999; Marcia, Waterman, Matteson, Archer, &Orlofsky, 1993; Schwartz, 2001), studies on the relationship between

ego identity and personality characteristics produced particularlyinteresting findings related to the problem at hand. For example,participants labeled with an achieved identity status commonly

showed a high degree of self-esteem and autonomy, were less sus-ceptible to social pressure, were characterized by an information-

processing style that was information oriented and self-exploring,and possessed well-integrated identity structures (Berzonsky, 1989,

1992; Marcia, 1993b; Markstrom-Adams & Adams, 1995; Matteson,1974). Like individuals with an achieved identity status, participants

in the moratorium status were found to be describable by an infor-mation-oriented identity style and a cognitive style that was reflective


rather than impulsive; the two groups, however, differed on the

commitment dimension, with moratorium individuals showing none(Berzonsky, 1992; Shain & Farber, 1989). In contrast, foreclosure

identity status was commonly associated with stereotypical socialthinking, a reliance on the family of origin in making life decisions,

and a normative identity style that was related to a collective self-definition (Berzonsky, 1994; Matteson, 1974; Waterman & Gold-

man, 1976). More mixed results were obtained for identity diffusion.However, subjects characterized by identity diffusion showed a low-er tendency to cope directly with personal problems and identity is-

sues, possessed fragmented self-theories, and typically used a diffuse/avoidant identity style (Berzonsky, 1990; Berzonsky, Rice, & Niem-

eyer, 1990; Grotevant & Adams, 1984).To summarize, studies on the relationship between implicit and

explicit motives provided evidence that individuals differ in theiralignment of the two types of motives. Motive congruence seems to

be related to an individual’s ability to gain access to self-represen-tations (e.g., implicit needs). Furthermore, findings from research on

identity formation point to pronounced differences between identitystatuses on a number of personality variables, reflecting differencesin the internalization of self-regulatory processes and introspective-

ness (Hofer, Chasiotis, Kiebling, & Busch, in press; Marcia, 1993b).Above all, individuals characterized by an achieved identity status

are describable by high levels of self-examination and a personallydefined identity. Therefore, we suggest that their explicit motives,

which are considered to constitute an important identity element,may be more attuned to the needs of the self instead of being purely

adopted from significant social partners. Consequently, we assumethat higher levels of an achieved interpersonal identity are positivelyrelated to a synchronization of implicit and explicit affiliation mo-

tives. In contrast, we assume that a pronounced interpersonal fore-closure status may be associated with an incongruence of the two

types of motives because individuals rely on significant others whenworking on identity issues. Thus, their explicit affiliation motives

may be adopted from significant others rather than being scrutinizedfor personal fit and tuned to implicit needs. No clear predictions can

be made for interpersonal identity moratorium and diffusion, re-spectively, because these statuses, even if differing concerning the

involvement in identity issues, are characterized by a lack of firmcommitment to explicit motives such as values and goals. However,

516 Hofer et al.

we expect it to be unlikely that motive congruence does occur in

tandem with pronounced levels of the two statuses.

METHOD

Participants

The total study sample consisted of 181 individuals; four participants,however, were excluded from analysis because they did not provide com-plete information on motives and/or identity development. The remaining133 female and 44 male subjects were recruited among students in thefinal year at local secondary schools (N5 58) and among university stu-dents (N5 119). Among students of psychology, only freshmen were ac-cepted as participants of the study (N5 69).

The participants ranged in age from 17 to 43 at the time of the datacollection (M5 22.46; SD5 5.32). Most of the subjects (N5 162; 91.3%)were between 18 and 29. Female and male participants did not differ sig-nificantly in age. The majority of the participants were unmarried(N5 164).

Measurements

Students were invited to participate in a study on the relationship of imag-ination and personality characteristics. Prior to administration of meas-urement, students were informed that their participation in the study wasvoluntary and that all given information would remain anonymous andconfidential. Measurements were administered in group settings. First, aTAT-type picture-story test was administered, followed by questionnaireson explicit motives and identity status. Finally, participants provided in-formation on sociodemographic variables. The session ended at thispoint, and participants were debriefed.

Implicit motives. Data on the implicit affiliation-intimacy motive wereassessed by the use of verbal cues, which represent a valid alternative forpicture cues to elicit thematic apperception stories (Murstein, 1965;Smith, Feld, & Franz, 1992) and were used in a number of studies onimplicit motives (e.g., Orlofsky, 1977; Peterson & Stewart, 1993). Fourverbal cues were presented to each subject in the following order: a personlooking into a microscope; a young person talking about something im-portant with an older person; at the end of the day, a person going backto the office; a person sitting in a chair with a smile on the face. The study


participants were instructed according to established guidelines for the-matic apperception measurement (see Smith et al., 1992). Verbal cueswere presented at the top of each page, and the participants were given 5minutes to compose a story for each cue. The content of the stories wascoded for the affiliation-intimacy motive that they reflected according tothe well-established manual for scoring motive imagery in running textdeveloped by Winter (1991a, 1991b; e.g., Brunstein et al., 1998; King,1995; Peterson & Stewart, 1993). This system combines the affiliationmotive and the intimacy motive into a single image category because oftheir theoretical and empirical overlap. Therefore, in the following thenotation n Affiliation will be used to refer to the combined affiliation-intimacy motive. This combined motive reflects both a concern for warm,close relations with others, and a concern for establishing, maintaining, orrestoring a positive affective relationship with another person or a groupof people (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958; McAdams, 1992). n Affil-iation is coded for any response indicating the establishment, mainte-nance, or restoration of friendly relationships expressed by positivefeelings towards others, regret about the disruption of a relationship, ac-tivities of affiliation, or friendly nurturing acts. The stories were codedindependently by two trained assistants who achieved percentage agree-ments of 85% or better in their responses to training material prescoredby experts (Winter, 1991a). Percentage agreement between coders was .93for n Affiliation.1 Scoring disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Following scoring rules (for details, see Winter, 1991), a number ofaffiliation imagery was identified for each single story and summed todetermine the participant’s final score. Among the relevant study sample(N5 177), the number of words for the four stories ranged from 129 to563 (M5 346.32; SD5 79.20). The score for the strength of the motive isexpressed as motive images per 1,000 words because of a significant cor-relation between protocol length and the number of affiliation motiveimages across the four stories (r5 .34) (see Winter, 1991a).

Explicit motives. Participants’ explicit affiliation motivation was assessedby using the affiliation scale of the German version of the PersonalityResearch Form (Stumpf, Angleitner, Wieck, Jackson, & Beloch-Till,1985). The development of the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jack-son, 1984) was based to a large extent on Murray’s theory of personality.The PRF is currently one of the most widely used questionnaires to assess

1. Percentage agreement between scorers across all four stories was conservatively

estimated by the index of concordance: 2 � number of agreements between

scorers/(scorer A’s scores1scorer B’s scores) (see Martin & Bateson, 1993;

Winter, 1991a).

518 Hofer et al.

self-attributed motives in research on personality. According to Stumpfet al. (1985), the scales of the German PRF have a high factorial validity,satisfying internal consistency, and acceptable retest reliability. The ex-plicit affiliation motive is assessed by 16 items in a true-false format.

Identity status. The revised Extended Objective Measure of Ego IdentityStatus (EOM-EIS; Bennion & Adams, 1986) was applied in a Germanversion (Kapfhammer, 1995) to measure identity status. Validation stud-ies of the questionnaire included samples of individuals ranging from 14to 56 years of age (see Adams, 1999). The questionnaire is widely used inresearch on individual differences in identity development and trajectoriesof identity development of adolescent and adult individuals (e.g., Clancy& Dollinger, 1993; Lewis, 2003; Nelson, Hughes, Handal, Katz, & Se-aright, 1993). The EOM-EIS consists of 64 items in which half of theitems focus on the interpersonal (i.e., friendship, dating, sex roles, andrecreation) and the other half cover the ideological (i.e., occupation, pol-itics, religion, and philosophical lifestyle) identity domain. Participantsrespond to the items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (stronglyagree) to 6 (strongly disagree). As affiliation motivation centers, above all,around relationships with other persons or groups and seems in substanceclosely related to interpersonal identity issues, we did not focus on theideological identity domain in this article.

A single identity status or a transition identity status category can beassigned to an individual by applying cut-off points (see Adams, 1999).However, the continuous measures of the EOM-EIS may indicate notonly the identity status of a given individual but also ‘‘how much ofeach status is manifested in a given individual’’ (Schwartz & Dunham,2000, p. 150). Lewis (2003) argued that it might be useful to use contin-uous measures of identity status rather than identity status categoriesbecause some studies indicate that the four identity statuses do not show aclean factor structure (e.g., Bennion & Adams, 1986). Furthermore, theuse of cut-off points seems to be somewhat arbitrary (see Adams, 1999;Jones, Akers, & White, 1994) and entails difficulties in assigning pureidentity statuses to individuals (e.g., a high number of individuals intransition categories or in ‘‘low profile moratorium’’). In contrast, con-tinuous measures allow individuals to vary in each of the identity statusesand may help obtain deeper insight into identity development (Lewis,2003; Waterman, 1993). Schwartz and Dunham (2000) emphasized themethodological advantage of continuous measures because they allowedstatistical analyses with greater power. In addition, it is possible to cor-relate them with other variables from other constructs. Therefore,this study predominantly used continuous measures of ego identity foranalyses.


RESULTS

The presentation of the results is subdivided into three sections. Thefirst section briefly reviews the quality of both scales and the data

obtained from the German student sample. The second section sum-marizes the general statistics and examines differences related to

gender and educational status as well as age-related effects. Addi-tionally, the correlation between the explicit and implicit motives is

presented. The final section presents the linear regression analysesused to explore the main issue of this article: the relationship of af-filiation motives’ congruence and an individual’s interpersonal ego

identity development.

Reliability and Normal Distribution of Measurements

To render the presentation of the findings more convenient, the in-terpersonal identity scores were recoded (e.g., 6 to 1, 5 to 2, and so

on), that is, the higher the score, the more pronounced a given iden-tity status is. The four interpersonal scales of the EOM-EIS showed

satisfying to high internal consistencies (Nunnally, 1978) and werelocated in the range usually found in other studies with somewhatlower consistency values for moratorium and diffusion scales (e.g.,

Adams, 1999; Bennion & Adams, 1986). Cronbach’s Alphas were .76for identity achievement, .63 for identity moratorium, .81 for iden-

tity foreclosure, and .64 for identity diffusion, respectively. The af-filiation scale of the PRF (.72) also showed a reasonable internal

consistency (Kruder-Richardson 20). As expected, internal consist-ency of thematic apperception measurement was rather low for n

Affiliation, showing a value of .34. Even if the validity of projectivemeasurements was repeatedly questioned as a consequence of thelow reliability of these measures (e.g., Entwisle, 1972), advocates of

thematic apperception measurements, such as Atkinson, Bongort,and Price (1977; Karon, 1981), commented that basic principles of

the classical test theory might not be adequate for projective meas-urements. Furthermore, the Thematic Apperception Test is a good

example of a valid test without showing a high internal consistencybecause a considerable number of studies have confirmed the validity

of thematic apperception measures (e.g., McAdams & Vaillant,1982; see also Meyer et al., 2001).

520 Hofer et al.

A screening of the data for normality indicated that most of theobtained variables (see Table 1) were not normally distributed

(skewness) and thus would violate assumptions of inferential statis-tics (Bradley, 1982). Therefore, variables were transformed

according to guidelines recommended by Tabachnik and Fidell(1996) considering the extent to which they deviate from normaland the direction of the deviation by the use of square root and

log transformation, respectively. Accordingly, square root trans-formation was applied for n Affiliation (moderate positive skewness)

and log transformation for identity foreclosure and identitydiffusion (substantial positive skewness), respectively. Negative ske-

wed variables were reflected and then transformed by using the ap-propriate strategy for positive skewness, that is, square root

transformation for identity achievement and log transformationfor PRF affiliation.2

Table 1Descriptive Statistics Based on Raw Data and Correlations of Explicit

Affiliation Motivation, Need for Affiliation, and Interpersonal EgoIdentity Statuses (N 5177)

Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD

1 n Affiliation1 — 7.53 4.84

2 PRF Affiliation1 .08 — 11.92 2.92

3 Achievement1 .09 .19n — 34.49 5.90

4 Moratorium � .16n � .07 � .34nn — 22.76 5.69

5 Foreclosure1 � .01 � .00 � .15n .23nn — 14.33 5.29

6 Diffusion1 .01 � .10 � .28nn .18n .22nn — 17.40 5.22

npo .05. nnpo .01.

Note. 15Distributions of raw data deviate from normality.

2. Since the distribution of n Affiliation contained values of zero, a constant of

value 1 was added to each score to avoid taking the square root of zero (see

Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Reflected negatively skewed variables were reflected

again after transformation. The transformation of variables that were not nor-

mally distributed did not affect results of analyses.


General Statistics, Mean Differences, and Correlations Between

Measurements

Table 1 presents descriptive raw data as well as correlations between

measurements of interpersonal identity statuses, explicit affiliationmotivation, and need for affiliation (N5 177).

Similar to other studies (e.g., Lewis, 2003; see also Adams, 1999),participants attained the highest mean score for identity achievement

status versus the other three statuses. Analyses revealed significantnegative correlations between interpersonal identity achievement and

the remaining three identity statuses; that is, the higher individualsscored for interpersonal identity achievement, the lower levels they

reported for moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion. Moreover, iden-tity moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion showed significant pos-itive correlations among each other. We also found a significant

positive correlation between participants’ strength of explicit affilia-tion motivation and their level of interpersonal identity achievement

and a significant negative correlation between students’ implicit needfor affiliation and their level of identity moratorium. As commonly

reported in research, no significant correlation between self-attribut-ed affiliation motivation and n Affiliation was found.

To examine whether the extent of a given identity status differsbetween university students and students at secondary schools orbetween female and male participants, four analyses of variance were

computed with the two factors educational status and gender. Ad-ditionally, participants’ age was entered as a covariate to control for

age-related effects on identity statuses. Analyses revealed neithersignificant main effects of educational status and gender nor signif-

icant effects of the interaction term on the four interpersonal identitystatuses. However, the value of three identity statuses was signifi-

cantly associated with age: identity achievement (F5 4.28; po.05),identity moratorium (F5 12.78; po.001), and identity foreclosure

(F5 10.76; po.01). A higher age was significantly correlated with amore pronounced identity achievement status (r5 .22; po.01) and aless pronounced identity moratorium (r5 � .22; po.01) and identity

foreclosure (r5 � .27; po.001), respectively. No age-related effectwas found for identity diffusion. We also examined by analysis of

variance whether participants’ educational level, gender, and age waslinked to the strengths of implicit and explicit affiliation motives.

Here, no significant effects were found.

522 Hofer et al.

Interpersonal Ego Identity Status and Motive Congruence

We applied hierarchical regression analyses (simultaneous entry

method) to examine whether a participant’s interpersonal identitydevelopment is significantly associated with congruence of affiliationmotives. Selected predictor variables were converted to z-scores. The

motive interaction coefficient (product term) was calculated withz-standardized motive indicators (see Friedrich, 1982). A separate

analysis was computed for each interpersonal identity status. Weentered the remaining three identity statuses into the first block be-

cause of significant correlations between identity measurements. Ad-ditionally, participants’ age was incorporated to form the set of first

order predictors (Block 1) since age was significantly correlated withthe value of three interpersonal identity statuses. Next, measure-ments of affiliation motivation were entered as predictor variables

(Block 2). And finally, after controlling for the underlying variables,motive interaction coefficients (higher-order term: explicit affiliation

motivation n n Affiliation) were entered into the model (Block 3).In the regression model for interpersonal identity diffusion

(F5 5.19; po.01; R2 5 .11), only two of the first-order predictorswere significantly associated with participants’ level of diffusion: the

level of identity achievement (b5 � .21; po.01) and the level of iden-tity foreclosure (b5 .16; po.05) significantly explained variance of

identity diffusion. Additional variance was explained neither by sin-gle-motive indicators nor by the motive interaction coefficient. Sim-ilarly, in the regression model for interpersonal identity moratorium

(F5 9.26; po.001; R2 5 .17), only the level of identity achievement(b5 � .28; po.001) and the level of identity foreclosure (b5 .16;

po.05) showed significant associations with levels of moratorium.Again, no additional variance was explained by single-motive indica-

tors and by the motive interaction coefficient, respectively.In Table 2, the results for interpersonal identity achievement are

presented. Considering the first set of predictor variables for inter-personal identity achievement, participants’ age and levels of identitydiffusion and moratorium accounted for a significant portion of

variance in the regression analysis. That is, a higher age and lesspronounced identity diffusion and moratorium were significantly

associated with a greater level of identity achievement. Additionalvariance was explained by motive measurements in Block 2 (R2

change5 .04; po.05). Whereas a more pronounced self-attributed


affiliation motive was significantly associated with a greater level ofidentity achievement, no significant association between identityachievement and the strength of the implicit affiliation motive was

obtained. By including the motive interaction coefficient in Block 3,significantly more variance in the level of identity achievement was

explained (R2 change5 .03; po.01).Significant associations were also found in the regression analysis

for interpersonal identity foreclosure (see Table 3). Whereas partic-ipants’ age and levels of identity diffusion and moratorium were

significantly associated with the extent of identity foreclosure, suchthat a lower age and higher levels of diffusion and moratorium were

Table 2Interpersonal Identity Achievement: Influence of Age, Remaining

Identity Statuses, Motives, and Motive Congruence

Identity status

Outcome: Level of interpersonal identity status

Block Predictor

Variables bUnadjusted

R2 (F-value)

Achievement 1 age .16n .18nnn (9.36)

foreclosure .07

diffusion � .20nn

moratorium � .28nnn

2 age .21nn .22nnn (7.99)

foreclosure .08

diffusion � .18n

moratorium � .25nn

explicit Affiliation .19nn

n Affiliation .06

3 age .23nn .25nnn (8.31)

foreclosure .11

diffusion � .19nn

moratorium � .25nn

explicit Affiliation .20nn

n Affiliation .12

n Affiliation n explicit

Affiliation

.20nn

npo .05. nnpo .01. nnnpo .001.

524 Hofer et al.

correlated with a higher level of identity foreclosure, entering explicitand implicit motives in Block 2 did not explain any additional var-iance. However, the motive interaction term explained additional

variance in Block 3 (R2 change 5 .03; po.05).3

Following the procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991),

interpersonal status scores for identity achievement and identityforeclosure were calculated at the mean value and at values one

Table 3Interpersonal Identity Foreclosure: Influence of Age, Remaining

Identity Statuses, Motives, and Motive Congruence

Identity status

Outcome: Level of interpersonal identity status

Block

Predictor

Variables bUnadjusted

R2 (F-value)

Foreclosure 1 age � .23nn .13nnn (6.50)

achievement .07

diffusion .16n

moratorium .17n

2 age � .25nn .13nnn (4.40)

achievement .09

diffusion .15n .16nnn (4.64)

moratorium .17n

explicit Affiliation � .05

n Affiliation � .02

3 age � .27nn

achievement .13

diffusion .17n

moratorium .17n

explicit Affiliation � .06

n Affiliation � .07

n Affiliation n explicit

Affiliation

� .17n

npo .05. nnpo .01. nnnpo .001.

3. We computed identical regression analyses with measurements of ideological

identity statuses as dependent variables. However, none of the motive predictor

variables could significantly explain variance in the ideological identity domain.


standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively, for pre-

dictor variables in the significant interaction term to clarify the exactnature of the interaction.

The relationship of individuals’ level of interpersonal identityachievement and their reported strengths of explicit and implicit

motives is presented in Figure 1. Simple slope tests revealed thatslopes corresponding to a medium (t5 2.77; po.01) and to a high

implicit affiliation motive (t5 3.90; po.001), respectively, differedsignificantly from zero (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003;O’Connor, 1998). Individuals characterized by a high implicit affil-

iation motive showed higher levels of interpersonal identity achieve-ment the more their reported explicit affiliation motivation was

aligned to implicit needs. Similarly, participants with a moderateimplicit affiliation motive obtained a higher degree of identity

achievement the higher they scored on explicit affiliation motiva-tion. In contrast, no differences in identity achievement were found

for individuals with a low need for affiliation.

–0.6

–0.4

–0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

–1 SD Mean + 1 SD

Affiliation (PRF)

Inte

rper

sona

l Ide

ntity

Ach

ieve

men

t

1 SD above mean (nAFF)

mean (nAFF)

1 SD below mean (nAFF)

Figure 1Level of interpersonal identity achievement and its relationship to the

association of explicit and implicit affiliation motivation.

526 Hofer et al.

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between explicit and implicitmotives and an individual’s level of interpersonal identity foreclos-

ure. Simple slope tests indicated that only the slope associated with ahigh implicit need for affiliation (t5 � 2.24; po.05) differed signif-

icantly from zero. Motive-congruent participants with a strong im-plicit need for affiliation showed a noticeably lower level of

interpersonal identity foreclosure than motive-incongruent partici-pants. Even if the slopes for participants, either characterized by a

low implicit affiliation motive or a moderate implicit need for affil-iation, pointed to expected directions, no significant differences fromzero were obtained.

Finally, we were interested in whether we could identify similarconnections between motive congruence and identity for categorical

measures of identity status. According to the scoring rules for pureidentity status types proposed by Adams (1999),4 we calculated

–0.6

–0.4

–0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

– 1 SD Mean + 1 SD

Affiliation (PRF)

Inte

rper

sona

l Ide

ntity

For

eclo

sure

1 SD above mean (nAFF)

mean (nAFF)

1 SD below mean (nAFF)

Figure 2Level of interpersonal identity foreclosure and its relationship to the

association of explicit and implicit affiliation motivation.

4. According to Adams (1999), participants scoring one standard deviation or

higher above the mean on a given subscale are categorized for that identity status

if all remaining scores fall below their corresponding cut-off points.


cut-off points for our sample to allocate identity statuses to partic-

ipants. As reported in other studies (e.g., Grotevant & Adams, 1984;Jones et al., 1994), a pure interpersonal identity status could only be

assigned to a relatively small percentage of participants (N5 68;38.4% of the sample). Twenty-three participants were categorized as

identity achievement, 18 as moratorium, 12 as foreclosure, and 15 asdiffusion. We calculated correlations between implicit and explicit

measurements of affiliation motivation for each of the pure identitystatuses. We found that the two measures were uncorrelated amongparticipants assigned to identity diffusion (r5 .04) and to identity

moratorium (r5 .00), respectively. However, explicit and implicitmotives showed a significant negative correlation among identity

foreclosures (r5 � .79; po.01) and a significant positive correlationamong identity achievers (r5 .48; po.05). We tested whether corre-

lations significantly differed from one another by employing Fisherr-to-z transformation. Using a one-tailed p-value, we found that the

correlation of explicit and implicit motives is significantly smalleramong foreclosure participants than among participants character-

ized by identity achievement (z5 � 3.97; po.01), identity morato-rium (z5 � 2.54; po.01), and identity diffusion (z5 � 2.52;po.01), respectively. Furthermore, identity achievers show a mar-

ginally significant higher correlation among motive measurementsthan did students assigned to identity diffusion (z5 1.32; po.10) and

identity moratorium (z5 1.53; po.10), respectively. A significantlydifferent correlation of explicit and implicit motives was not found

between diffusion and moratorium.

DISCUSSION

Motives and Identity Formation

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between in-terpersonal identity formation and congruence between implicit and

self-attributed affiliation motives. As we were interested in motivecongruence and identity formation, which in late adolescence repre-

sents a main issue in an individual’s development, we were collectingdata from individuals ranging from 17 to 43 years of age. Given that

our sample consisted of secondary school students and universitystudents, it was initially tested whether the two subgroups differed

528 Hofer et al.

on measures employed in the study. No significant differences were

found, however. Our findings that older participants showed higherlevels of identity achievement and lower levels of identity moratorium

match with the idea that identity development is typically consideredto be a main issue in adolescence (Erikson, 1968) that usually is re-

solved in the early twenties (for a recent meta-analysis on age andidentity statuses, see Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999).

Consistent with findings reported in research on motivation (e.g.,Brunstein et al., 1999; King, 1995), no significant correlations be-

tween implicit and explicit affiliation motives were found in the totalsample. However, we verified for categorical measures (pure identitystatuses) that interpersonal identity achievers showed more congru-

ent affiliation motives than the three remaining identity statuses.Although explicit and implicit affiliation motives did not correlate

among individuals characterized by pure identity diffusion and mor-atorium, the two types of motives were clearly conflictive among

identity foreclosures but were reasonably synchronized among iden-tity achievers. This last finding indicates that pure interpersonal

identity achievers showed a higher degree of integration in given as-pects of personality, namely an alignment of implicit and explicitmotives, than participants characterized by identity foreclosure, dif-

fusion, or moratorium.In further regression analyses we showed that the strength of the

implicit affiliation motive is not associated with continuous measuresof the four interpersonal identity statuses. Similar results were found

for self-attributed affiliation motivation and interpersonal identitymoratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion. In contrast, self-attributed

affiliation motivation was, in general, positively related to anachieved interpersonal identity. This relationship of explicit motiva-

tion and identity achievement was qualified by a significant motiveinteraction coefficient for interpersonal identity achievement. In linewith our assumption, participants characterized by a pronounced

implicit need for affiliation (medium and high levels of n Affiliation)scored higher on identity achievement when reported self-attributed

motives were congruent with their implicit need for affiliation. Wealso found that motive congruence was associated with lower scores

on identity foreclosure for individuals with a high need for affilia-tion. Regardless of the reported strength of explicit motives, no sig-

nificant differences in identity achievement were found forindividuals with a low implicit need for affiliation. This finding


may indicate that even if explicit affiliation motives were reported in

varying degrees, the interpersonal domain may be of minor impor-tance in identity formation when a strong implicit need for affiliation

is lacking. The commitment to explicit affiliation motives could bebased on an adoption of values and goals of significant persons and/

or groups. Our finding that participants with a low need for affili-ation scored slightly higher on interpersonal identity foreclosure the

stronger their explicit motives were may point to such a conclusion.In order to maintain connectedness with others, individuals may re-port pronounced explicit affiliation motives that do not correspond

to implicit motive but, instead, are socially valued (see Ryan et al.,1995).

Brunstein et al. (1999) assumed that the two types of motivesmight be aligned in an individual’s development. Thus, we suggest

that the search for a sense of sameness and continuity that is nec-essarily accompanied by an intense examination of divergent life

goals, values, or attitudes (Marcia, 1994) provides an opportunity totest explicit motives for congruence with clearly pronounced implicit

needs. According to Deci and Ryan (1985; see also Sheldon & Elliot,1999), the self seeks integration of intrapsychic entities (e.g., needs)and external pushes (e.g., parental norms). As individuals differ in

their degree of self-determination, they also differ in their extent ofintegration and motive congruence (Thrash & Elliot, 2002; see also

Higgins, 1987; Langens, 2001). The important role of self-regulatorymodes of volition (dispositions of action control) in the alignment of

motives was also reported by Brunstein (2001; see also Kuhl, 2001).Consequently, the degree of motive congruence may be regarded as

an indication of the action of self-regulatory and integrative proc-esses (Ryan & Deci, 2003; Thrash & Elliot, 2002).

In the field of research on identity formation, Adams and Mar-

shall (1996) refer to self-awareness, self-focusing, and self-conscious-ness due to incongruent thoughts, feelings, or behaviors as primary

mechanisms that stimulate transformation in identity. Berzonsky(1989, 1992) showed that individuals categorized as identity achieve-

ment (and moratorium) are characterized by an informational andself-exploring style. Such a style embraces an active search for, and

use of, self-relevant information as the self searches for acceptableand employable values and goals. However, identity status literature

suggests that individuals differ in their awareness of incongruities(Adams & Marshall, 1996). Berzonsky (1992) showed that foreclos-

530 Hofer et al.

ure identity was related to a normative identity style characterized by

a concern to conform to expectations of significant others and by aconservation of existing self-constructions that might be at odds with

an evaluation of commitments to explicit motives for individual fit(see also Adams, 1999). Hence, individuals are less likely to explore

options and are more likely to identify with and imitate others.Self-examination is also considered a precondition for the align-

ment of implicit and explicit motives (e.g., Schultheiss & Brunstein,1999, 2002; see also Miron & McClelland, 1979). Thus, introspective-

ness and self-regulatory processes may be viewed as an individual’scapacities for developing a personally defined identity that concurswith an alignment of implicit and self-attributed motives. However,

our findings indicate that the linkage between self-regulation proc-esses and identity formation is influenced by the given strength of the

implicit need for affiliation. Thus, self-regulation as an executivefunction of the self that filters information, selects a response from

numerous options, and is responsible for response enactment (Baum-eister & Vohs, 2003) may be of particular relevance when strong im-

plicit needs assign personal importance to a given identity domain.Research provided extensive evidence that self-attributed motives

differ in their fit with an individual’s self-concept, ranging from

highly valued self-generated goals to purely adopted social normsand obligations (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kuhl, 2001). Furthermore,

commitment and attainment to motive-congruent goals was associ-ated with enhanced well-being (Brunstein et al., 1999; Hofer &

Chasiotis, 2003; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Therefore, pursuance ofand commitment to need-congruent explicit motives may be related

to emotionally rewarding consequences for individuals with a pro-nounced need for affiliation during identity formation. In contrast,

engagement in affiliative concerns of participants with a low need foraffiliation might be based on an adoption of values and goals fromsignificant social partners in a given sociocultural setting. Thus, they

are less likely to experience enhanced emotional well-being by thecommitment to explicit affiliation motives.

Additionally, they are less likely to perceive incongruities betweenthe two types of affiliation motives. Hence, a linkage between inter-

personal identity achievement and motive congruence may be lesslikely to be found in participants with a low implicit affiliation mo-

tive. A strong explicit affiliation motivation may be associated withemotional distress, however, if it conflicts with the satisfaction of an


individual’s pronounced implicit needs (e.g., need for achievement;

Winter, 1996) that may occur in tandem with deficits in the devel-opment of a meaningful identity in the ideological domain.

According to Isen (2003), positive affect is a source of humanstrength that fosters flexible cognitive processing that in turn ‘‘ena-

bles people to do what needs to be done’’ (p. 180). A linkage betweenidentity formation and psychological well-being was also postulated

byMarcia (1989a) in assuming identity achievement to be the health-iest status because it implies an adequate adaptation to the environ-mental context (see also Meeus et al., 1999). Our findings suggest

that this notion may be enhanced by including an adaptation to in-trapsychic needs.

Whereas we could identify relationships between motive congru-ence and identity statuses that are characterized by a firm commit-

ment to explicit goals, values, and attitudes, we could not verifyany significant association between affiliation motivation and

interpersonal identity moratorium and diffusion, respectively,which are lacking a distinct and firm adherence to explicit motives

(Marcia, 1994). Neither the strength of the two types of motivesnor their degree of alignment seemed to be related to the level of anindividual’s identity moratorium and identity diffusion. These

results indicate that the four scales of the EOM-EIS, even ifcorrelated with one another, reflect different components of an in-

dividual’s identity development. For example, although higheridentity achievement scores were associated with lower reported

levels of identity moratorium and diffusion, low scores onmoratorium and diffusion did not entail commitment to (self-

congruent) explicit motives. Generally, it is assumed that the levelof identity moratorium reflects to what extent an individual is ac-tively involved in the search for a coherent, flexible self (see Ryan &

Lynch, 2004). Because the moratorium status is characterized byexploration and an information-oriented, reflective cognitive style

(Berzonsky, 1992; Marcia, 1980), one could assume that this searchmight eventually result in a firm commitment to identity-relevant

domains accompanied by a congruence of motives. The finding thata higher need for affiliation is associated with lower scores for in-

terpersonal identity moratorium (simple correlation) may indicatethat a pronounced implicit need assigns importance to the given

identity domain and promotes the resolution of interpersonal iden-tity issues.

532 Hofer et al.

However, no such prediction can be made for identity diffusion

status. Whereas Berzonsky, Nurmi, Kinney, and Tammi (1999) stat-ed that identity diffusion individuals display an unwillingness to deal

directly with identity issues, Marcia (1989b) postulated a rethinkingof the concept of identity diffusion. He argued that the status iden-

tity diffusion may better be viewed as a conglomerate of differenttypes of identity diffusion. He identified at least four different types

of identity diffusion: disturbed, carefree, culturally adaptive, anddevelopmental diffusion. Our result that participants’ age showed no

relationship to the level of identity diffusion may support the idea ofdifferent facets of diffusion. Although one could expect age-relatedeffects for developmental diffusion, it is at least questionable wheth-

er an age-related decrease should be assumed for the other threetypes. As modern societies urge individuals to react flexibly to

changing trends and to function smoothly in various settings, Wa-terman (1999) argued, identity diffusion may become the dominant

identity status. Thus, an individual’s level of identity diffusion mayreflect a varying need to adapt to divergent sociocultural contexts

relatively independent of an individual’s implicit motives.

Limitations and Future Perspectives

The above-mentioned problem related to different types of identity

diffusion leads to the limitations of the study. It might be useful tobreak down identity diffusion in subcategories to examine in-depth its

relationship with explicit and implicit motivation. Future studiescould also focus on the ideological identity domain, although the

link between agency motives (achievement and power) and a com-bined ideological domain seems to be less straightforward than that

between affiliation motivation and interpersonal identity. While ourresults are based on cross-sectional data, a longitudinal approach

would be preferable in order to examine the dynamic nature of self/identity and developmental pathways of the relationship of identityformation and the alignment of explicit with implicit motives. In this

context, the assessment of identity styles (Berzonsky, 1994) and self-regulatory skills that are related to an individual’s capacity to regulate

positive and negative affect (Kuhl, 2001) seem to be promising. Gen-erally, consideration of emotions in this type of study seems to be

desirable because self-evaluations that tap an individual’s basic con-cerns doubtlessly are connected with emotions (Kunnen, Bosma, Van


Halen, & Van der Meulen, 2001). A close linkage between affect and

cognitive and motivational processes is also emphasized by Isen (2003)and could be a fruitful approach for studies on self-organization.

It is assumed that adolescence marks the beginning of a period inontogenesis that embraces the chance to integrate divergent aspects

of the self into a personally defined identity. In this article we pre-sented evidence that motivational processes and cognitive evalua-

tions are intertwined in self-organization. We found evidence that analignment of affiliation motives, considered to reflect an individual’sself-regulation capacities, is significantly associated with different

facets of an individual’s search for congruent and purposeful inter-personal identity. Depending on the strength of the implicit motive,

congruence of different aspects of the self, that is, the alignment ofexplicit and implicit affiliation motives, seems to be linked to a per-

sonal sense of a coherent self. However, differences in identity for-mation provide evidence that individuals differ in their awareness of

incongruities between the self as known and the self that could be(Adams & Marshall, 1996). Whereas some individuals actively ex-

plore different identity options as a result of distress associated withincongruities, other individuals show less self-awareness and aremore likely to imitate others regardless of personal needs. Thus, a

further investigation of factors underlying the integration of differ-ent aspects of the self is needed.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R. (1999). The objective measure of ego identity status: A manual on

theory and test construction. Guelph, Ontario: Department of Family Relations

and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph.

Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of

identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19,

429–442.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and

normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 466–487.

Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety

conceived as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 52–63.

Atkinson, J. W., Bongort, K., & Price, L. (1977). Explorations using computer

simulation to comprehend thematic apperceptive measurement of motivation.

Motivation and Emotion, 1, 1–27.

534 Hofer et al.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Self-regulation and the executive func-

tion of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney, Handbook of self and identity

(pp. 197–217). New York: Guilford Press.

Bennion, L., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the Extended Version of the

Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: An identity instrument for use with

late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183–198.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). The self as a theorist: Individual differences in identity

formation. International Journal of Construct Psychology, 2, 363–376.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life-span: A process perspec-

tive on identity formation. In G. J. Niemeyer & R. A. Niemeyer (Eds.), Ad-

vances in personal construct theory (Vol. 1, pp. 155–186). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Person-

ality, 60, 771–788.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between process and

content. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 453–460.

Berzonsky, M. D., Nurmi, J.-E., Kinney, A., & Tammi, K. (1999). Identity

processing style and cognitive attributional strategies: Similarities and

difference across different contexts. European Journal of Personality, 13,

105–120.

Berzonsky, M. D., Rice, K. G., & Niemeyer, G. J. (1990). Identity status and self-

construct systems: Process x Structure interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 13,

251–263.

Biernat, M. (1989). Motives and values to achieve: Different constructs with dif-

ferent effects. Journal of Personality, 57, 69–95.

Bradley, J. V. (1982). Distribution-free statistical tests. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-

Hall.

Brunstein, J. C. (2001). Personliche Ziele und Handlungs- versus Lageorientie-

rung. Wer bindet sich an realistische und bedurfniskongruente Ziele? (Personal

goals and action versus state orientation: Who builds a commitment to realistic

and need-congruent goals?). Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische

Psychologie, 22, 1–12.

Brunstein, J. C., Maier, G. W., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1999). Motivation und

Personlichkeit: Von der Analyse von Teilsystemen zur Analyse ihrer Interakt-

ion (Motivation and personality: From the analysis of partial systems to the

analysis of their interaction). In M. Jerusalem & R. Pekrun, Emotion, Moti-

vation und Leistung (pp. 147–167). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and

emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 494–508.

Bucci, W. (1997). Psychoanalysis and cognitive science: A multiple code theory.

New York: Guilford Press.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation

by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Cantor, N. (1994). Life task problem solving: Situational affordances

and personal needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,

235–243.


Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality. I. Identity

status and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Research in Ad-

olescence, 3, 227–245.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regres-

sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Constantinople, A. (1969). An Eriksonian measure of personality development in

college students. Developmental Psychology, 1, 357–372.

Cramer, P. (2000). Development of identity: Gender makes a difference. Journal

of Research in Personality, 34, 42–72.

deCharms, R., Morrison, H. W., Reitman, W. R., & McClelland, D. C. (1955).

Behavioral correlates of directly and indirectly measured achievement moti-

vation. In D. C. McClelland (Ed.), Studies in motivation (pp. 414–423). New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Emmons, R. A. (1997). Motives and life goals. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.

Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 485–512). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Emmons, R. A., & Kaiser, H. A. (1996). Goal orientation and emotional well-

being: Linking goals and affect through the self. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser

(Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation

(pp. 79–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Entwisle, D. R. (1972). To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of

achievement motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 377–391.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers by Erik H. Er-

ikson. Psychological Issues, 1, 1–171.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression

equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797–833.

Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984). Development of an objective measure

to assess ego identity in adolescence: Validation and replication. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 13, 419–438.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. (1981). Assessing adolescent identity in the areas

of occupation, religion, politics, friendship, dating, and sex roles: Manual for

administration and coding of the interview. JSAS Catalog of Selected Docu-

ments in Psychology, 11, 52, (Ms. No. 2295).

Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the

affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and so-

ciety (pp. 205–218). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psycho-

logical Review, 94, 319–340.

Hofer, J., & Chasiotis, A. (2003). Congruence of life goals and implicit motives as

predictors of life satisfaction: Cross-cultural implications of a study of Zam-

bian male adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 251–272.

536 Hofer et al.

Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., Kiebling, F., & Busch, H. (in press). Quality of familial

relations in childhood and ego identity formation: The moderating influence of

dispositions of action control. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and

Research.

Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive affect as a source of human strength. In L. G. Aspin-

wall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental

questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 179–195). Wash-

ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Manual for the Personality Research Form. Port Huron,

MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Jones, R. M., Akers, J. F., &White, J. M. (1994). Revised classification criteria for

the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS). Journal of

Adolescence, 17, 533–549.

Kapfhammer, H. P. (1995). Psychosoziale Entwicklung im jungen Erwachsenenal-

ter (Psychosocial development in young adulthood) Berlin: Springer.

Karon, B. P. (1981). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). In A. I. Rabin

(Ed.), Assessment with projective techniques: A concise introduction (pp. 85–

120). New York: Springer.

King, L. A. (1995). Wishes, motives, goals, and personal memories: Relations of

measures on human motivation. Journal of Personality, 63, 985–1007.

Kroger, J. (1993). Ego Identity: An overview. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Discussions

on ego identity (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kuhl, J. (2001). Motivation und Personlichkeit. Interaktionen psychischer Systeme

(Motivation and personality. Interactions of psychological systems). Gottin-

gen: Hogrefe.

Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (Eds.) (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus

state orientation. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Kunnen, E. S., Bosma, H. A., Van Halen, C. P. M., & Van der Meulen, M. (2001).

Introduction. In H. A. Bosma & E. S. Kunnen (Eds.), Identity and emotion:

Development through self-organization (pp. 1–9). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Langens, T. A. (2001). Predicting behavior change in Indian businessmen from a

combination of need for achievement and self-discrepancy. Journal of Research

in Personality, 35, 339–352.

Lewis, H. L. (2003). Differences in ego identity among college students across age,

ethnicity, and gender. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Re-

search, 3, 159–189.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of

adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York: Wiley.

Marcia, J. E. (1989a). Identity and intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 215–

223.

Marcia, J. E. (1989b). Identity diffusion differentiated. In M. A. Luszcz & T.

Nettelbeck (Eds.), Psychological development: Perspectives across the life-span

(pp. 289–294). Amsterdam: Elsevier.


Marcia, J. E. (1993a). The relational roots of identity. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Dis-

cussions on ego identity (pp. 101–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-

sociates.

Marcia, J. E. (1993b). The status of the statuses: Research review. In J. E. Marcia,

A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego

identity: A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 22–41). New York: Spring-

er.

Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G.

Graafsma, H. D. Grotevant, & D. J. De Levita (Eds.), Identity and develop-

ment: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 67–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marcia, J. E., & Archer, S. L. (1993). The identity status interview: Late adoles-

cent college form. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L.

Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial re-

search (pp. 318–333). New York: Springer.

Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L.

(Eds.) (1993). Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York:

Springer.

Markstrom-Adams, C., & Adams, G. R. (1995). Gender, ethnic group, and grade

differences in psychosocial functioning during middle adolescence? Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 24, 397–417.

Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (1993). Measuring behavior: An introductory guide. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Matteson, D. R. (1974). Alienation versus exploration and commitment: Personal-

ity and family correlaries of adolescent identity statuses. Report for the Project

for Youth Research, Copenhagen Royal Danish School of Educational

Studies.

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The intimacy motive. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation

and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 224–228). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

McAdams, D. P., & Vaillant, G.E (1982). Intimacy, motivation and psycho-social

adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 586–

593.

McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant and re-

spondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psy-

chology (Vol. 1, pp. 10–41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The

achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed

and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.

McClelland, D. C., & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives in patterns of

parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 44, 564–574.

Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adoles-

cent development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmen-

tal Review, 19, 419–461.

538 Hofer et al.

Melgosa, J. (1987). Development and validation of the occupational identity scale.

Journal of Adolescence, 10, 385–397.

Meyer, J. M., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., & Dies, R.

R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review

of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.

Miron, D., & McClelland, D. C. (1979). The impact of achievement motivation

training on small business performance. California Management Review, 21,

13–28.

Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Murstein, B. I. (1965). The stimulus. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Handbook of pro-

jective techniques (pp. 509–546). New York: Basic Books.

Nelson, W. L., Hughes, H. M., Handal, P., Katz, B., & Searight, H. R. (1993).

The relationship of family structure and family conflict to adjustment in young

adult college students. Adolescence, 28, 29–40.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Connor, B. P. (1998). SIMPLE: All-in-one programs for exploring interactions

in moderated multiple regression. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

58, 833–837.

Orlofsky, J. L. (1977). Identity formation, Achievement, and fear of success in

college men and women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 49–62.

Patten, R. L., & White, L. A. (1977). Independent effects of achievement moti-

vation and overt attribution on achievement behavior. Motivation and Emo-

tion, 1, 39–59.

Peterson, B. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1993). Generativity and social motives in young

adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 186–198.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use

with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.

Rasmussen, J. (1964). Relationship of ego identity to psychosocial effectiveness.

Psychological Reports, 15, 815–825.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-

determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cul-

tures. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),Handbook of self and identity (pp.

255–273). New York: Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and

the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti &

D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and meth-

ods (pp. 618–655). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, F. L. (2004, July). Variability of self-concept across per-

sonal relationships: The role of culture, autonomy-support, and authenticity. Pa-

per presented at the Third International Biennial SELF Research Conference:

Self-Concept, Motivation, and Identity, Berlin.

Schultheiss, O. C. (2001). An information processing account of implicit motive

arousal. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and

achievement: Vol. 12. New directions in measures and methods (pp. 1–41).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (1999). Goal imagery: Bridging the gap

between implicit motives and explicit goals. Journal of Personality, 67, 1–38.

Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2002). Inhibited power motivation and

persuasive communication: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality, 70,

553–582.

Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2005). An implicit perspective on compe-

tence. In A. J. Elliot & C S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and mo-

tivation (pp. 31–51). New York: Guilford.

Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity

theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Jour-

nal of Theory and Research, 1, 7–58.

Schwartz, S. J., & Dunham, R. M. (2000). Identity status formulae: Generating

continuous measures of the identity status from measures of exploration and

commitment. Adolescence, 35, 147–165.

Shain, L., & Farber, B. A. (1989). Female identity development and self-reflection

in late adolescence. Adolescence, 24, 381–392.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and lon-

gitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.

Smith, C. P., Feld, S. C., & Franz, C. E. (1992). Methodological considerations:

Steps in research employing content analysis systems. In C. P. Smith (Ed.),

Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 515–

536). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stumpf, H., Angleitner, A., Wieck, T., Jackson, D. N., & Beloch-Till, H. (1985).

Deutsche Personality Research Form (PRF) (German Personality Research

Form). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York:

Harper Collins.

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement

motives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70, 729–

755.

Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson’s theory: Commu-

nalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8, 185–208.

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Developmental perspectives on identity formation: From

adolescence to adulthood. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S.

L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial

research (pp. 42–68). New York: Springer.

Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status devel-

opment: A contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591–621.

Waterman, A. S., & Goldman, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal study of ego identity

development at a liberal arts college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5, 361–

369.

Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D. C. (1990). Cognitive versus traditional moti-

vational models. Irreconcilable or complementary? In E. T. Higgins & R. M.

Sorrentino (Eds.),Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 2. Foundations of

social behavior (pp. 562–597). New York: Guilford Press.

Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.

540 Hofer et al.

Winter, D. G. (1991a). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text. Uni-

versity of Michigan.

Winter, D. G. (1991b). Measuring personality at a distance: Development of an

integrated system for scoring motives in verbal running text. In A. J. Stewart, J.

M. Healy Jr., & D. J. Ozer (Eds.), Perspectives in personality: Approaches to

understanding lives (pp. 59–89). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation of lives. New York:

McGraw-Hill.


542

Documents

Motive Congruence and Interpersonal Identity Status