Abstract
This article explicates the theory of drive and describes the development and validation of two measures. A representative set of drive facets was derived from an extensive corpus of human attributes (Study 1). Operationalised using an International Personality Item Pool version (the Drive:IPIP), a three-factor model was extracted from the facets in two samples and confirmed on a third sample (Study 2). The multi-item IPIP measure showed congruence with a short form, based on single-item ratings of the facets, and both demonstrated cross-informant reliability. Evidence also supported the measures’ convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and incremental validity (Study 3). Based on very promising findings, the authors hope to initiate a stream of research in what is argued to be a rather neglected niche of individual differences and non-cognitive assessment.
Highlights
In contrast to intelligence and personality, the substantive literature on motivation can be described as ‘fuzzy’ at the conceptual and taxonomic levels, lacking organisational frameworks to accommodate the multitude of constructs involved [1]
Operationalised using an International Personality Item Pool version, a three-factor model was extracted from the facets in two samples and confirmed on a third sample (Study 2)
It was agreed that these two facets stand out conceptually and, the decision was made to discard them at this stage
Summary
In contrast to intelligence and personality (the other main pillars of individual differences), the substantive literature on motivation can be described as ‘fuzzy’ at the conceptual and taxonomic levels, lacking organisational frameworks to accommodate the multitude of constructs involved [1]. Examples include the distinctions of intrinsic motivation (from within) versus extrinsic motivation (via external incentives) [17], mastery orientation (desire to acquire new knowledge or skills) versus performance orientation (desire to demonstrate ability and impress) [18], as well as approach motivation (engagement rewarded by positive outcomes) versus avoidance motivation (disengagement rewarded by positive outcomes) [19] These measures focus on the types of reasons for, and nature of, people’s behaviour, rather than particular motivators or drive . Factor analytic research shows that multiple distinct dimensions underlie individual differences in these interrelated families of constructs [4,5,6,27,28] This finding is in line with theory, for there is no reason why having particular motivators (e.g., recognition, power, or hedonistic motives) should imply a greater likelihood of having any other motivators (e.g., aesthetic or scientific motives). It comprises the facets of several established personality inventories and, extends beyond the facets used to represent and operationalise the Big Five personality traits
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
