 18. Implicit Motives  393
lations between implicit and explicit motive 
measures were small for achievement (.14) 
and affiliation (.12) and did not reliably dif -
fer from zero for power (.04). Moreover, 
Köllner and Schult  heiss found that these 
small correlations decrease to zero in more 
recent publications. They explained this 
observation with a substantial file-  drawer 
problem in earlier research.
Schult  heiss, Yankova, et al. (2009) point -
ed out that low correlations between PSE 
and self-  report measures may be due in 
part to the fact that implicit and explicit 
motive measures are not commensurable: 
The former record participants’ responses 
to specific contextual cues (e.g., pictures) 
and use specific content categories; the lat -
ter present largely context-  free response op -
tions that moreover do not systematically 
overlap with the content categories used 
by the former. So, is the lack of association 
between implicit and explicit motive mea -
sures only a methodological artifact mask -
ing more substantial relationships between 
the two forms of measurement? To test this 
idea, Schult  heiss, Yankova, et al. (2009) de -
vised a Picture Story Exercise Questionnaire 
(PSE-Q) with the same pictures as the PSE 
and items reflecting the content of each of 
Winter’s (1991) PSE coding categories. In 
this and subsequent studies (Neumann & 
Schult  heiss, 2015; Schult  heiss, Patalakh, 
Rawolle, Liening, & MacInnes, 2011), PSE 
and PSE-Q scores for the same motives did 
not reliably converge, suggesting that the independence of the two forms of measure -
ment is real. Schult  heiss, Yankova, et al. 
(2009) found that the PSE-Q converged with 
a standard questionnaire measure of motiva -
tional needs, as would be expected based on 
the interrelationships of explicit measures 
reported by Rawolle and colleagues (2013). 
The stubborn lack of substantial between- 
measures correlations suggests that, in gen -
eral, people do not have conscious access 
to the strength of their motives, as assessed 
with the PSE, and that the motivational 
needs and goals they ascribe to themselves 
cannot be interpreted as valid indicators 
of their underlying motive dispositions . 
For this reason, McClelland and colleagues 
(1989) labeled motivational constructs as -
sessed with the PSE implicit motives  and 
motivational constructs assessed through 
self- report methods explicit motives  or self-  
attributed needs  (abbreviated san ).
Implicit and  Explicit Motives Predict Different 
Types of  Behavior
Perhaps even more important than the find -
ing that implicit and explicit motives do not 
correlate substantially is the observation 
that the two types of constructs respond to 
different kinds of stimuli and predict differ -
ent kinds of outcomes. In an early study of 
the differences between implicit and explicit 
achievement motives, deCharms, Morrison, 
Reitman, and McClelland (1955) found 
that high san  Achievement, but not high n TABLE 18.1.  Pearson Correlations between Measures of Implicit Motives,a 
Commitment Ratings for Self-Generated Personal Goals,b and Self-Attributed 
Motivesc across Three Domains of Motivation
Implicit motive 
× personal goal 
commitmentImplicit motive 
× self-attributed 
motivePersonal goal 
commitment × self-
attributed motive
Power –.12*  .00 .15**
Achievement .04 –.01  .31***
Affiliation .10  .02  .26***
Note . N = 309. From Rawolle et al. (2013, Table 2).
aAssessed with the PSE.
bReflected by scores on items such as “I fully identify myself with this goal.”
cAssessed with standard questionnaires.
*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .005.