 18. Implicit Motives  391
fined considerably over time, and a compi -
lation of most existing coding systems for 
implicit motives was published by C. Smith 
(1992). Winter (1991) developed an inte -
grated coding system that allows researchers 
to code all three major motives simultane -
ously and that can be applied to PSE stories 
as well as other types of verbal material (e.g., 
political speeches, diaries). More recently, 
Pang (2010b) and Schult  heiss and Pang 
(2007) published general guidelines for mo -
tive assessment based on PSE story coding. 
Updated picture norms, guidelines for PSE 
data treatment, and a database of pictures 
were provided by Schönbrodt and colleagues 
(2020).
Reliability of PSE-based motive measures 
is good in terms of intercoder agreement, 
with Pearson r ’s typically >.75, and accept -
able in terms of retest stability, with Pearson 
coefficients of .71 after 1 day, .60 after 1 
week, .52 after 1 month, and .37 after 1 year 
(Schult  heiss & Pang, 2007). Internal con -
sistency estimates (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha), 
computed across stimuli (i.e., pictures), 
are typically much lower (e.g., Schult  heiss, 
2013a). However, most researchers agree 
that internal consistency is not an appropri -
ate indicator of the reliability of PSE-based 
motive measures. For example, Atkinson 
and Birch’s (1970) dynamics of action theory 
holds that a motivational need, once aroused 
and expressed in behavior, wanes and does 
not affect behavior in a subsequent time in -
terval until it is sufficiently aroused again by 
external cues to resurface. Consequently, if a 
motive is expressed in response to a previous 
picture cue, it is less likely to be expressed in 
response to a subsequent picture. Research 
on the waxing-  and- waning account of in -
consistent responding across pictures has 
yielded inconsistent results (Atkinson, 1981; 
Lang, 2014; Tuerlinckx, De Boeck, & Lens, 
2002).
Schult  heiss, Liening, and Schad (2008) 
proposed an alternative explanation of mo -
tive score inconsistency based on Mischel 
and Shoda’s (1995) if–then  account of per -
sonality. According to their explanation, 
PSE picture cues represent prototypical situ -
ational contexts that have become more or 
less associated with a given motivational 
incentive (e.g., having impact) and therefore 
elicit more or less motivational imagery in a person’s story. In support of this account, 
Schult  heiss, Liening, and Schad (2008) 
showed that motive profiles representing re -
actions to the individual pictures remained 
moderately stable across 2 weeks, even 
though picture sequence was randomized at 
each measurement. Busch and Hofer (2012) 
replicated this result in two larger samples 
and with an 18-month retest interval. These 
findings suggest that the PSE represents an 
if–then measure of motivational needs, pro -
viding information both about the overall 
strength of a person’s motives and about the 
specific situational contexts in which mo -
tives are expressed (Schult  heiss & Schult -
heiss, 2014).
The previous decade has seen increased 
scrutiny of non-PSE measures claiming to 
assess implicit motivational needs, primarily 
the Multi-  Motive Grid (MMG; Sokolowski, 
Schmalt, Langens, & Puca, 2000; see also 
Johnston, 1957) and the Operant Motive 
Test (OMT; Baumann, Kazen, & Kuhl, 
2010). So far, these measures have not been 
validated by motivational-  arousal studies, 
and neither measure converges with PSE 
motive measures (Schüler, Brandstätter, 
Wegner, & Baumann, 2015). Moreover, the 
MMG, which combines picture cues with 
self- report items, features striking similari -
ties with measures of self-  attributed (i.e., 
explicit) motives and traits based on similar 
picture-  item test strategies (Paunonen, Ash -
ton, & Jackson, 2001; Schult  heiss, Yankova, 
Dirlikov, & Schad, 2009), suggesting that 
this instrument assesses explicit aspects of 
personality, not implicit motives (Schult -
heiss, Yankova, et al., 2009).
Hope and  Fear Aspects of  Implicit  Motives
Almost from the start, researchers suspected 
that each motive may represent two comple -
mentary motivational orientations, one di -
rected toward attaining a motive-  specific 
incentive (approach or hope motivation) and 
another directed toward avoiding a motive- 
specific disincentive (avoidance or fear mo -
tivation) (e.g., Boyatzis, 1973; Heckhausen, 
1963; McClelland et al., 1953; Veroff & Ver -
off, 1972). Others argued that some people 
may fear a positive incentive itself because of 
the negative social consequences its attain -
ment may bring (e.g., Horner, 1972; Winter, 