Individual Differences in Three Types of Motive Congruence: Normative, Configural and Temporal

Abstract

The implicit and explicit components of the human motivational system are typically considered to be distinct but related, with varying implicit–explicit congruence across individuals. However, prior research has only measured a particular type of individual congruence, which I term normative congruence. Individuals who are normatively congruent have similar levels of explicit and implicit motivation as measured on a scale centered at the sample mean. I propose two new ways to model congruence. First, temporal congruence can be modeled by longitudinally measuring motives and examining the extent to which implicit and explicit motivation covary across occasions. In this type of congruence, occasions are the units of analysis. Second, configural congruence can be modeled by measuring motives in the achievement, affiliation and power domains and measuring covariation across domains. In this type of analysis, motive contents are the units of analysis. In two weekly-diary studies, I measured well-being and all three types of congruence. Analyses indicated that temporal and configural congruence were negatively related to each other. Normative congruence was not consistently related to well-being, and configural congruence was a highly robust predictor of greater well-being, whereas temporal congruence was a moderately robust predictor of lower well-being. Configural congruence may be beneficial because it entails having one’s identity aligned with one’s strongest implicit motives, an alignment which drives the adoption of life goals that one is motivated to pursue. Temporal congruence may be detrimental because it predicts a lack of compensatory processes to maintain explicit goal pursuit on occasions when implicit motivation lags. Thus, implicit–explicit congruence is not a unitary construct; there are different types of congruence that have unique implications for well-being.