A cross-cultural study of purposive “traits of action”: Measurement invariance of scales based on the action–trait theory of human motivation using exploratory structural equation modeling

• Authors: Larry C. Bernard , Jan Cieciuch , Andrew Lac , Barbara Žuro , Dino Krupić , Michael Richter , Nicolas Silvestrini , Bettina von Helversen

Abstracts

EN

The Action–Trait theory of human motivation posits that individual differences in predispositional traits of action may account for variance in contemporary purposeful human behavior. Prior research has supported the theory, psychometric properties of scales designed to assess the motive dimensions of the theory, and the utility of these scales to predict an array of behaviors, but this is the first study to evaluate the cross-linguistical invariance of the 15-factor theoretical model. This study evaluated translations of the English language 60-item Quick AIM in 5 samples – Croatian (N = 614), French (N = 246), German (N = 154), Polish (M = 314), and U.S. English (N = 490) – recruited from 4 countries (Croatia, Poland, Switzerland, and the U.S.). Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) supported the theoretical model on which the traits of action are based and scrutinized the measurement invariance (configural, metric, scalar invariance) of the scale across the languages.

Keywords

EN

AIM-Q; motivation; motive; evolutionary psychology; personality

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Studia Psychologica
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 5-29

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Larry C. Bernard

• Loyola Marymount University

• https://orcid.org/0000000322051549

author

Jan Cieciuch

• Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University

• https://orcid.org/0000000222918301

author

Andrew Lac

• University of Colorado – Colorado Springs

• https://orcid.org/0000000280353628

author

Barbara Žuro

• Peter McVerry Trust

• https://orcid.org/0000000210880692

author

Dino Krupić

• University of Osijek

• https://orcid.org/0000000343837807

author

Michael Richter

• Liverpool John Moores University

• https://orcid.org/0000000318689005

author

Nicolas Silvestrini

• University of Geneva

• https://orcid.org/0000000256549428

author

Bettina von Helversen

• University of Basel

• https://orcid.org/0000000320046922

References

• Aune, R. K., & Aune, K. S. (1994). The influence of culture, gender, and relational status on appearance management. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022194252006
• Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges, opportunities, and the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9521-y
• Bernard, L. C. (2007). Assessing individual differences in motivation: Convergent validity of the Assessment of Individual Motives – Questionnaire [AIM-Q] and measures of aggression, cognition, playfulness, and sexuality. Individual Differences Research, 5, 158–174.
• Bernard, L. C. (2009). Consensual and behavioral validity of a measure of adaptive individual differences dimensions in human motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9131-7
• Bernard, L. C. (2010). Motivation and personality: Relationships between putative motive dimensions and the five factor model of personality. Psychological Reports, 106, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.106.2.613-631
• Bernard, L. C. (2012). Evolved individual differences in human motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 381–407). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Bernard, L. C. (2013a). Manual for the Assessment of Individual Motives – Questionnaire. Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA.
• Bernard, L. C. (2013b). Relationships between individual differences in motivation and borderline personality disorder, psychopathy, and maladjustment. Psychological Reports, 113, 129–161. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.09.PR0.113x14z9
• Bernard, L. C., & Hardy, D. J. (2014). Motivated behavioral outcomes affect ratings of attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 115, 849–871. https://doi.org/10.2466/21.02.PR0.115c30z0
• Bernard, L. C., & Lac, A. (2014a). Testing a multidimensional model of putative evolved human motives. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9360-7
• Bernard, L. C., & Lac, A. (2014b). The incremental validity of motive “traits of action:” Predicting behavior longitudinally. Individual Differences Research, 12, 79–100.
• Bernard, L. C., Lac, A., & Lukaszewski, A. (2013, May). Motivation and personality: Relationships between QuickAIM motives and the HEXACO model of personality. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Washington, DC.
• Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005). An evolutionary theory of human motivation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131, 129–184. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.131.2.129-184
• Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2008). Measuring Motivation Multidimensionally: Development of the Assessment of Individual Motives–Questionnaire [AIM-Q]. Assessment, 15, 16–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107306131
• Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.187
• Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
• Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
• Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
• Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Oberski, D. L., & Algesheimer, R. (2015). Testing for measurement invariance by detecting local misspecification and an illustration across online and paper-and-pencil samples. European Political Science, 14, 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.64
• Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
• Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford, UK: W. H. Freeman.
• Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
• Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 35–50.
• Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
• Harriman, P. L. (1975). Handbook of psychological terms. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
• Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163–179). New York, NY: Guilford.
• Holt, E. B. (1931). Animal drive and the learning process: An essay toward radical empiricism. New York, NY: Holt.
• Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• International Test Commission. (2008). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. London, UK: The British Psychological Society. Retrieved from: www.InTestCom.org
• James, W. (1890). Instinct. In Principles of Psychology (Vol. II, pp. 383–441). New York, NY: Holt.
• Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.3
• Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behaviour in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis. San Francisco, SF: Jossey-Bass.
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
• MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
• MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
• Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
• Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
• McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. W., & Lowell, E. L. (1976). The achievement motive (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Irvington.
• Morin, A. J., Boudrias, J. S., Marsh, H. W., Madore, I., & Desrumaux, P. (2016). Further reflections on disentangling shape and level effects in person-centered analyses: An illustration exploring the dimensionality of psychological health. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2015.1116077
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
• Oettingen, G., Bulgarella, C., Henderson, M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2004). Self-awareness, self-motives, and self-motivation. In R. A. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S. S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational analyses of social behavior: Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 225–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Prohaska, T. R., Leventhal, E. A., Leventhal, H., & Keller, M. L. (1985). Health practices and illness cognition in young, middle aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/40.5.569
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
• Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behaviour in animals and men. London, UK: Century/Random House.
• Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundation of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A., Mikuška, J., & Jiskrova, G. (2015). The big five and adolescent adjustment: An empirical test across six cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.049
• Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.01

Biblioteka Nauki

1879465