Group Norms, Personal Priorities and Temporal Fidelity

Introduction

Chris C. Martin, Amanda K. Fuller, & Todd M. Thrash College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

A total of 309 undergraduates, split across two samples, participated in a weekly diary study spanning eight weeks.

Measures

‣ Implicit Motives: Measured using the Multi-Motive Grid (MMG-S: Sokolowski, Schmalt, Langens, & Puca, 2000), a semi-projective measure.

‣ Explicit Motives: Agree-disagree scales with 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

‣ For normative congruence, scores were standardized, and the absolute difference of z scores was computed. For configural and temporal congruence, HLM residuals were used.

Data Analysis

‣ Latent growth curve models were used to examine the relationship of each type of congruence with the intercept and slope of individual well-being.

Measuring Implicit-Explicit Congruence

‣ People have unconscious (implicit) and conscious (explicit) systems of motivation.

‣ 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 should pursue explicit goals that are aligned with their internal appetitive structure.

‣ As a result, they should experience greater well-being . The literature tends to support this hypothesis, but results are mixed.

‣ 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.

Methods Results

Aspects of Implicit–Explicit Motive Congruence and Implications for Well-Being

Normative congruence was an inconsistent predictor of well-being. It predicted mean well-being in Sample 1, but not Sample 2.

Configural congruence robustly predicted mean well-being and growth in well-being in both samples.

Temporal congruence consistently predicted lower well-being across both samples. Uniquely among the congruence types, it positively and robustly predicted NA.

The average participant was incongruent, and congruence scores varied greatly across participants.

The average participant was configurally incongruent, with much variance across participants.

The average participant was temporally congruent in all domains, with little variance across participants.

Normative congruence had low predictive validity. Thus, measuring congruence normatively may be suboptimal.

Excessive temporal congruence may indicate an inefficient, impulsive diffusion of effort, instead of consistent commitment to goals. Thus, it may cause greater ill-being.

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.

Co

mp

ari

so

n t

o G

rou

p

No

rm (

No

rma

tiv

e)

Explicit

Pe

rso

na

l Pri

ori

tie

s

(Co

nfi

gu

ral)

Tem

po

ral F

ide

lity

(Te

mp

ora

l)

Incongruent

Ach

Explicit

Aff

Pow

Implicit

TimeTime

Congruent

Incongruent

AchAff

Pow

Congruent

AchAff

Pow

AchAff

Pow

AchAff

Pow

Implicit

Achievement

Power

Affiliation

Congruent

Incongruent

Overall Individual Differences Discussion

Conclusion

ReferencesThe 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.

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.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325

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: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

    Sample 1   Sample 2

Correlations Standardized Path Coefficients

Correlations Standardized Path Coefficients

    Mean Slope (r)   Mean Slope (β)   Mean Slope (r)   Mean Slope (β)

Normative

PA .24** -.15 .15* -.24 .14 .03

NA -.05 -.20 -.06 -.12 -.07 .17 -.07 .10

SWLS .24** .21 .20** .10 -.01 -.03 -.08 -.01

Vitality .23** .03 .16* -.07 .11 .02

Self-actualization .31*** -.03 .31** -.03 .15† .08 .07 .04

Configural

PA .53*** .38* .43*** .44* .74*** .75***

NA -.04 -.44* .07 -.35† -.09 .16 -.04 .26†

SWLS .34*** .58*** .20* .56*** .58*** .02 .58*** -.04

Vitality .40*** .53* .30*** .51* .63*** .63***

Self-actualization .43*** .39** .43*** .39** .64*** .34* .63*** .33*

Longitudinal

PA -.36*** -.12 -.21** .03 -.16† .05

NA .26** .30† .28** .18 .16† .32* .16† .38**

SWLS -.34*** -.21 -.27*** .00 -.21* -.18 -.05 .19†

Vitality -.29** -.29 -.18* -.11 -.15† .02

  Self-actualization -.21* -.16   -.21* -.16   -.16† -.09   .01 .00