 18. Implicit Motives  389
in generative behavior (e.g., Peterson & 
Stewart, 1996). This is reflected to some ex -
tent already in the n Power measure, which 
treats themes of unsolicited help as indica -
tors of the need for social impact (Winter, 
1991). It is also reflected in power-  motivated 
individuals’ articulated desire to contribute 
something to the well-being of others or the 
next generation (e.g., Peterson & Stewart, 
1993; Winter, 2016). But power-  motivated 
individuals’ sociality has boundaries. As a 
study of couples by Hagemeyer, Schönbrodt, 
Neyer, Neberich, and Asendorpf (2015) 
shows, power-  motivated men showed signs 
of impaired relationship functioning when 
they lived in one household with their part -
ner, but not if they lived apart.
In the political arena, n Power is associ -
ated with the proactive initiation of armed 
conflicts, as has been observed in U.S. presi -
dents and South African leaders during the 
apartheid regime (Winter, 2010). U.S. presi -
dents high in n Power have a higher risk of 
being assassinated (e.g., Kennedy, Lincoln) 
but are also held in greater esteem by his -
torians than low-power presidents (Win -
ter, 2010). Winter (2016) suggests that the 
potentially aggressive stance of power- 
motivated politicians can be mitigated by 
other factors, such as a generative historical 
awareness that involves an acceptance of 
one’s own limited role and importance (see 
also Winter & Leclerc, 2019).
In many studies (e.g., McClelland & Boy -
atzis, 1982; Steinmann et al., 2015), the 
effects of n Power on behavior depend on 
individuals’ level of activity inhibition, the 
tendency to use negations in spoken or writ -
ten language (Schult  heiss, Riebel, & Jones, 
2009). In general, high-power individuals 
show more sophisticated, context-  sensitive 
power behavior when they are high in activ -
ity inhibition, and more self-  centered mani -
festations of their need for impact when 
they are low in this variable (Langens, 2010; 
Schult  heiss, 2018; Schult  heiss, Riebel, et al., 
2009).
Developmentally, research has identified 
prenatal and early socialization factors that 
are associated with adult n Power levels. 
Schult  heiss and Zimni (2015) and Schult -
heiss and colleagues (2019) have shown that 
the ratio between the second and the fourth 
digit, which reflects fetal hormone exposure during the first pregnancy trimester, is asso -
ciated with n Power in young adults (see also 
Janson, Bleck, Fenkl, Riegl, Jägel, & Köll -
ner, 2018; Köllner & Bleck, 2020, for rela -
tionships of n Power to pubertal hormone 
exposure). McClelland and Pilon (1983) re -
ported that parental permissiveness for ag -
gressive and sexual behavior assessed at the 
age of 5 positively predicts n Power in mid -
dle adulthood. Jointly, these findings sug -
gest a growth-  and-prune model of n Power 
development (see Köllner, Janson, & Bleck, 
2019) according to which prenatal hor -
mone exposure determines initial n Power 
strength, and then the child’s need for social 
impact is either tolerated or scaled back by 
more or less punitive parental socialization 
practices, respectively. Even if parents do not 
curtail their children’s power motivation, 
further development is necessary to refine 
the impulsive self-  assertion characteristic of 
young children into the socially more intel -
ligent ways of power-  motivated adults. Some 
contextual factors, such as the presence of 
both parents (McClelland & Pilon, 1983) 
or younger siblings (Winter, 1988) during 
childhood and adolescence appear to con -
tribute to mature adult n Power. However, 
in-depth research into the more proximal 
factors and processes shaping n Power over 
the course of development is still missing, 
and the existence of early developmental 
precursors should not be misconstrued as 
evidence that motives do not continue to de -
velop in adolescence and adulthood.
Measurement of Implicit Motives
A defining feature of motive research in the 
tradition of McClelland and his collabora -
tors is the experimental arousal of motiva -
tional states to derive and validate motive 
measures (see Figure 18.1).  This feature 
precedes the implicitness aspect of motives, 
which emerged as an empirical by-  product 
of accumulating research findings over the 
years (see McClelland, Koestner, & Wein -
berger, 1989). For instance, McClelland 
et al. (1953) experimentally manipulated 
whether research participants wrote imagi -
native stories in response to pictures after 
achievement-  arousing conditions (including 
the encounter of success, failure, or both) or 