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

Larry C. Bernard; Jan Cieciuch; Andrew Lac; Barbara Žuro; Dino Krupić; Michael Richter; Nicolas  Silvestrini; Bettina von Helversen

doi:10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.01

Published: 2021-08-04

Vol. 21 No. 1 (2021)

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

Larry C. Bernard

, Jan Cieciuch

, Andrew Lac

, Barbara Žuro

, Dino Krupić

, Michael Richter

, Nicolas Silvestrini

, Bettina von Helversen

Studia Psychologica: Theoria et praxis

Section: Commentaries

https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.01

Abstract

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:

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

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Bernard, L. C., Cieciuch, J., Lac, A., Žuro, B., Krupić, D., Richter, M., Silvestrini, N. ., & von Helversen, B. (2021). 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 . Studia Psychologica: Theoria Et Praxis, 21(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.01

Cited by / Share

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Bernard, L. C. (2013a). Manual for the Assessment of Individual Motives – Questionnaire. Department of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Bernard, L. C., & Lac, A. (2014b). The incremental validity of motive “traits of action:” Predicting behavior longitudinally. Individual Differences Research, 12, 79–100.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford, UK: W. H. Freeman.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 35–50.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Harriman, P. L. (1975). Handbook of psychological terms. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Holt, E. B. (1931). Animal drive and the learning process: An essay toward radical empiricism. New York, NY: Holt.
Google Scholar

Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2008). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. London, UK: The British Psychological Society. Retrieved from: www.InTestCom.org
Google Scholar

James, W. (1890). Instinct. In Principles of Psychology (Vol. II, pp. 383–441). New York, NY: Holt.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. W., & Lowell, E. L. (1976). The achievement motive (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Irvington.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Google Scholar

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Google Scholar

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behaviour in animals and men. London, UK: Century/Random House.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar