Social motives among Anglo American and Mexican American children: Experimental and projective measures

JOURNAL

OF

RESEARCH

IN

PERSONALITY

15,

93-106 (1981)

Social Motives among Anglo American and Mexican American Children: Experimental and Projective Measures SPENCER

KAGAN University

AND GEORGE of California,

P. KNIGHT’

Riverside

The measurement approaches to social motives. cooperation-competition games and projective tests, have revealed apparently similar findings: Anglo American children are more competitive and higher in n Achievement compared to Mexican American children, who are more cooperative and higher in n Afhliation. The present experiment tested the extent to which (1) competitiveness is related to n Achievement, (2) cooperativeness is related to n Affiliation, and (3) the cultural differences in cooperation-competition are related to those in n Aftiliation and n Achievement. Results indicate that social motives inferred from a cooperation-competition game have a meaningful relation to those inferred from a projective test, but that the cultural differences in cooperation-competition are larger and are not explained by cultural differences inn Affiliation and n Achievement. Social motives inferred from each measurement methodology, while somewhat related, are distinct.

Social motives have been assessed via two different research methodologies, experimental cooperation-competition games and projective tests, and each measurement methodology is associated with a considerable and rapidly growing literature. Although within each methodology several distinct motives have been distinguished and their interrelations explored, little systematic research has explored the relations among motives between methodologies. Therefore the relationship of studies using the two methodologies is unclear. For example, Anglo Americans are higher both in competitive motives and in achievement motivation, whereas Mexican Americans are higher both in some cooperative motives and in affiliation motivation, but research to date has not determined the extent to which the greater cooperativeness of Mexican Americans relates to their higher affiliation motivation and the extent to which the greater competitiveness of Anglo Americans relates to their higher achievement motivation. The present study was conducted to Reprints are available from the authors, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521. The present research was partially supported by University of California intramural Research Grant X5-538404-19900-5. L Now at The University of Arizona, Tucson, 85721. 93 0092-6566/81/010093-14$02.00/O Copyright @ 1981 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

94

KAGAN

AND

KNIGHT

determine the interrelations between social motives as defined by the two research traditions and to explore the implications of these findings for understanding cultural differences between Mexican American and Anglo American children. Game Approaches

to Social Motives

Experimental cooperation-competition games are of two types, social interaction games and social motive games. Social interaction games measure behavior in situations in which individuals actively interact; they include a wide variety of games, such as the cooperation board (Madsen, 1967); the marble pull game (Madsen, 1971); the circle matrix board (Kagan & Madsen, 1971); the cooperation box (Kagan & Madsen, 1972a); the trucking game (Deutsch & Krauss, 1%4); the triadic board game (Vinacke, 1969); and a variety of matrix games such as prisoner’s dilemma games (Rapaport & Chammah, 1965) and maximizing difference games (McClintock & McNeel, 1967). These social interaction games, while useful in the study of interpersonal interactions, are of limited worth in assessing individual social motivation because behavior in complex dyadic or group interaction situations is often determined by strategic concerns or interpersonal interaction styles. For example, rural Mexican children tend to behave cooperatively in game situations which involve the potential for direct interpersonal conflict, but their cooperative behavior is in part a function of their tendency to avoid overt interpersonal conflict rather than just the presence of cooperative motives or the absence of competitive motives (Kagan & Madsen, 1972b). In contrast to social interaction games, social motive games provide a reliable basis for inferring individual social motives because they minimize interpersonal interaction and simplify the operations necessary for the expression of social motives. Social motive games include decomposed prisoners’ dilemma games and other simple situations which allow individuals to make choices between two or more alternatives which directly provide outcomes for themselves and at least one other individual. The possible motivational bases for choices in such outcomeinterdependency situations have been explored within several theoretical frameworks (Greisinger & Levingston, 1973; Kagan, 1977; McClintock, 1972; McClintock, Messick, Kuhlman, & Campos, 1973; MacCrimmon & Messick, 1976; Messick & McClintock, 1968). These theoretical frameworks indicate that it is possible to infer social motives from the extent to which individuals or groups consistently choose alternatives with certain outcome properties. Four types of outcomes may be distinguished: own outcomes; other outcomes; relative outcomes (own minus other outcomes); and joint outcomes (own plus other outcomes). According to the definitions and theoretical framework provided by Kagan (1977), which are used in the

MEASURES

OF

SOCIAL

MOTIVES

95

present paper, an individualistic social orientation is inferred from a tendency to maximize positive outcomes for the self regardless of outcomes for others. A competitive social orientation is related to preference for (a) superiority-maximizing relative outcomes; and/or (b) rivalryminimizing the outcomes of the other. A cooperative social orientation is associated with preference for (a) altruism-maximizing the outcomes of the other; (b) equality-minimizing the difference between own and other outcomes; and/or (c) group. enhancement-maximizing joint outcomes. Recent evidence supports the conclusion that experimental social motive games in fact assess important enduring individual and cultural differences in social motives. Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic social orientations as assessed by social motive games are associated with corresponding behaviors in social interaction games (Bern & Lord, 1979; Knight & Kagan, 1977a; Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975) and are systematically related to how individuals are viewed by others who know them well (Bern & Lord, 1979). Mexican American children, who are more cooperative than Anglo American children in a variety of social interaction situations (Kagan & Madsen, 1971; Madsen & Shapira, 1970; McClintack, 1974), also have more cooperative motives as measured by social motive games (Avellar & Kagan, 1976; Kagan, Zahn, & Gealy, 1977; Knight & Kagan, 1977a, 1977b). One social motive game, the social behavior scale (Knight & Kagan, 1977a, 1977b), was selected for use in the present experiment for a variety of reasons. It offers two distinct cooperative alternatives (one satisfying the motive for altruism and/or group enhancement, and the other satisfying equality motivation) and two competitive alternatives (one satisfying the motive for rivalry and/or superiority, and the other offering only superiority). Research with the social behavior scale has revealed that children are consistent over time in their motive choices, that their choices in an individual choice condition correlate well with their behaviors in social interaction situations, and that they understand the unique properties of the four choice alternatives as indicated by their verbal responses (Knight & Kagan, 1977a). Further, the social behavior scale has clarified the nature of cultural differences between Anglo American and Mexican American children: The cultural differences are strongest along the relative outcome dimension (Anglo American children have stronger motives toward superiority; Mexican American children are more motivated toward equality); there is some cultural difference in concern for the outcomes of the other (Anglo Americans are more rivalrous; Mexican Americans are more altruistic); and there is no evidence for a group-enhancement motive among children of either cultural background (Knight & Kagan, 1977a). The social behavior scale does not assess strength of individualism, which is controlled across the four choice alternatives, but that was deemed acceptable for the present exper-

96

KAGAN

AND

KNIGHT

iment because previous research has shown that individualism is a strong motive for children of both cultural groups (Avellar & Kagan, 1976; Kagan et al., 1977) and no cultural differences appear in choice conditions which include an individualistic alternative (Avellar & Kagan, 1976). Projective

Approaches

to Social Motives

The use of projective techniques to assess social motives presents several important contrasts to the experimental game approach, but the relationship between these two social motive measurement methodologies has not been established. Murray (1938) identified 44 needs, some of which were presumed to be viscerogenic in contrast to secondary or psychogenic needs. Potentially, a number of Murray’s needs could be related rather directly to cooperative or competitive social motivation. Terhune (1968) and Vinacke (1%9) note that theoretically, abasement, achievement, affiliation, aggression, autonomy, deference, exhibition, play, recognition, and rejection motivations all may relate in important ways to cooperativeness or competitiveness, but there is little systematic empirical evidence assessing the relationship of motives in the experimental and projective methodologies. For example, in one social interaction game, noncooperative subjects score higher on aggression motivation and autonomy motivation in contrast to cooperative subjects who score higher on abasement motivation and deference motivation (Marlowe, 1963), but the extent to which these relationships are a function of the motivational or strategic properties of the particular social interaction game employed remains unestablished. The primary aim of the present experiment was to determine the relationships between social motives as assessed by a social motive game and the two most extensively researched social motives defined by projective measures: achievement motivation and affiliation motivation. While previous research has examined the relationship of these two projective motives to behavior in some social interaction games, the relationship of these projective motives to motives inferred from a social motive game has not been studied. It was predicted for the present experiment that competitive motivation as assessed by a social motive game would relate to achievement motivation as assessed by a projective test and that cooperative motivation would relate to affiliation motivation. Achievement Motivation and Competitive Motives The hypothesis that achievement motivation relates to the competitive motives is theoretically plausible. Enjoyment of competition, determination to win, and rivalry with others have been described as characteristic of individuals high in achievement motivation (Murray, 1938). Competition with a standard of excellence is one of the defining characteristics of achievement motivation, and to the extent that an individual employs the

MEASURES

OF

SOCIAL

MOTIVES

97

attainments of others to formulate a standard of excellence, achievement motivation implies a tendency toward interpersonal competition. Veroff (1%9) has suggested that achievement motivation may sometimes take the form of concern for relative outcomes among children. Some empirical support for a relationship between achievement motivation and the competitive motives also exists. Anglo American children, who are generally more competitive than Mexican American children, are also generally higher than Mexican American children in achievement motivation (Ramirez & Price-Williams, 1976; Ramirez, Taylor, & Peterson, 1971; Sanders, Scholz, & Kagan, 1976). Mothers of high achievement motivation children, compared to mothers of low achievement motivation children, more often believe their children should “do well in competition with other children” and “try hard to come out on top in games and sports” (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958, p. 303). Further, when faced with the triad board game, subjects high in achievement motivation tend to compete for points more actively and more successfully than control subjects or subjects high in nurturance motivation (Amidjaja & Vinacke, 1965; Chaney & Vinacke, 1960). ‘On the other hand, subjects high in achievement motivation have been found to be trusting, nonexploitive, and generally more cooperative than subjects high in affiliation motivation or power motivation when faced with a matrix game (Terhune, 1968). These last two apparently conflicting results, however, could be due to differences in the unique strategic properties associated with each of the two types of social interaction employed; subjects high in achievement motivation may see competitive bargaining as instrumental to achievement in the triadic board game but may believe a cooperative orientation is instrumental to achievement in the particular matrix game employed by Terhune. In the present experiment a social motive game rather than a social interaction game was employed to eliminate the confounding effects of strategy concerns and thereby to clarify the relation of achievement motivation to competitive motives. Ajfiliation Motivation and Cooperative Motives The hypothesis that affiliation motivation may relate to cooperative motives is plausible both theoretically and empirically. To show goodwill and love, to do things which please another, to avoid wounding, to allay oppositions, and to employ cooperative strategies are all theoretically associated with affiliation motivation (Murray, 1938). Empirically, Mexican American children who as a group are more cooperatively motivated than Anglo American children also are higher in affiliation motivation (Ramirez & Price-Williams, Note 1; Sanders et al., 1976). Further, affiliation motivation has been related to a variety of behaviors which may be interpreted as reflecting a prosocial or cooperative orientation, including sensitivity to facial expressions (Atkinson & Walker, 1956); responsive-

98

KAGAN

AND

KNIGHT

ness to warm, caring teaching methods (McKeachie, Lin, Milholland, & Issacson, 1966); higher performance in cooperative than competitive groups (DeCharms, 1957); and higher incidence of telephoning and writing friends (Lansing & Heyns, 1959). As noted, however, contrary to expectations, Terhune (1968) found subjects high in affiliation motivation to be less cooperative than those high in achievement motivation in the matrix game he studied. Nevertheless, as indicated, this finding could be a function of strategic concerns rather than differential motives. If so, a relationship between affiliation motivation and cooperative motives would emerge in the present study which eliminates strategic considerations by employing a social motive rather than a social interaction game. Testing Relations

among Motives

A secondary aim of the present experiment was to assess the relationship of n Power to cooperative and competitive motives. The theoretical and empirical relationship of power motivation to cooperative and competitive motives is complex. Both McClelland (1970) and Winter (1973) present theory and evidence that power motivation may be related either to cooperative or to competitive behaviors; power motivation is consistently related to having an impact on others, but the type of impactcooperative or competitive-appears to be determined by other factors. Further, there are no consistent cultural differences in 12 Power between Anglo Americans and Mexican Americans (Ramirez, et al., 197 1; Sanders et al., 1976). It was expected, therefore, that power motivation would not significantly distinguish the cultural groups or consistently relate to cooperative or competitive motivation per se. It was expected, however, that high power motivation might be associated with extreme cooperation or extreme competition (satisfying the need for impactfulness) or that it might act as a facilitator variable, interacting with achievement motivation to produce particularly intense competition or with affiliation motivation to produce particularly intense cooperation. The present experiment was designed and analyzed to determine possible interactions among the projective motives in their relationships to the cooperative or competitive motives. This interactive approach is in contrast to social motive work which takes a normative stance toward social motives. For example, although Terhune (1968) provided the most comprehensive study of the relationship of projective motives to experimental game behavior, he studied subjects dominant in either achievement motivation, affiliation motivation, or power motivation. This normative approach eliminates the possibility of exploring the interaction of those motives. Recent work, however, has confirmed Groesbeck’s (1958) findings indicating the usefulness of considering the ipsative configuration of an individual’s motives, or their interaction (Donley & Winter, 1970;

MEASURES

OF SOCIAL MOTIVES

99

McClelland, 1973, and so this approach was adopted for the present investigation. Determination of the relationship between social motives assessed by the projective and experimental techniques is essential for understanding the nature of Mexican American-Anglo American cultural differences. As indicated, previous research has revealed that Mexican American children are both more cooperative and more affiliative than Anglo American children who are more competitive and achievement oriented. It is not clear, however, whether that research has documented independent sets of cultural differences or whether the same underlying social motive differences have been measured twice, once with each social motive methodology. The present experiment, by including both methodologies, allows determination of the extent to which the greater competitiveness of Anglo American children is related to their greater achievement motivation and the extent to which the greater cooperativeness of Mexican American children is related to their greater affiliation motivation. METHOD

Participants Participants were 77 Mexican American and 30 Anglo American children. The children were in the fourth through sixth grades, and each cultural group was fairly evenly divided by sex and age. The sample included all of the Mexican American and Anglo American children available for testing in a semiurban school located in a community which has been described in some detail as “traditional,” because it is majority Mexican American and individuals within it typically identify with both Mexican and Mexican American cultural values (Ramirez & Castaiieda, 1974; Ramirez, Castafteda, & Herold, 1974). The community is appropriate for cultural comparisons because it is relatively stable and previous research has established that the median annual incomes of the Mexican American and Anglo American families of the school children do not differ significantly (Knight 8r Kagan, 1977b).

Measures

and Procedures

Social behavior scale. The social motive game employed, the social behavior scale, has been described in detail elsewhere (Knight & Kagan, 1977a, 1977b). The social behavior scale is a 0.17 x 0.67-m choice card. Three lines on the choice card divide it into four equal boxes representing the four choice alternatives. In each alternative are 0.25-m chips representing the outcomes for the child and for the child’s classmate. See Fig. 1. The social behavior scale provides two cooperative alternatives and two competitive alternatives while controlling individualism. To control individualism, all alternatives provide three rewards for the chooser. The most cooperative alternative provides four rewards RIVALRY

j-1

~~;~~~~R,~y

FIG.

ALTRUISM

SUPERIORITY

1.

EC’UALITY

ALTRUISM

The social behavior scale.

100

KAGAN

AND

KNIGHT

for the other and satisfies the motives for altruism and group enhancement. The second cooperative alternative provides three rewards for the other and satisfies the motive for equality. The most competitive alternative provides only one reward for the other and satisfies the motives of rivalry and superiority. The remaining competitive alternative provides two rewards for the other and satisfies the motive for superiority. The social behavior scale provides five interrelated dependent measures: frequency of choice of each of the four alternatives (altruism/group enhancement, equality, superiority, and rivalry/ superiority) and mean giving (i.e., mean amount given to a peer over 10 trials). Children are told to choose whichever alternative they prefer and that the chips will later be traded for pencils, pens, and plastic games and puzzles which they view. On each trial the child places his or her own chips and those for the classmate in clear plastic containers. Children make choices for IO trials. Previous research (Knight & Kagan, 1977a) has demonstrated that children understand and respond to the unique properties of the four choice alternatives, that they are consistent over time in their motive choices, and that behavior in an imaginary peer condition, in which the other child is not present, correlates well with behavior in a passive peer condition, in which the other child is present but does not choose. The imaginary peer condition was used in the present experiment in order to eliminate variance due to social interaction and strategic concerns. Projective measures. Need achievement, need affiliation, and need power were operationalized in the present experiment by traditional Thematic Apperception Test measures of n Achievement, n Affiliation, and n Power described extensively in Atkinson (1958). These measures are obtained by content analyzing short stories written in 5 min in response to verbal cues developed by Winterbottom (1958). The conditions of administration have been described in detail elsewhere (DeCharms, 1976; McClelland et al., 1958). The verbal cues are: (I) a father and son talking about something important; (2) two men working at a machine; (3) a boy with his head resting on his hands; (4) a mother and her child looking worried; (5) a young person sitting at a desk; and (6) brothers and sisters playing-one being a little ahead. The protocols for each child were scored separately for each projective motive by a different scorer using the scoring systems which have been developed for n Achievement (McClelland et al., 958), n Affiliation (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958). and n Power (Veroff, 1958). Scorer reliabilities were established by having each scorer reach criterion with the “expert” provided by Atkinson (1958).L Reliabilities were as follows: n Achievement, p = .98; n Affiliation, p = .%; and n Power, p = 92. Extensive validity data for the n Achievement, n Aftiliation, and n Power scoring systems employed in the present experiment are presented in Atkinson (1958). Data are presented indicating that each motive measure is sensitive to specific experimental manipulations designed to influence the motive it is presumed to measure, and that each motive measure correlates in predictable ways with a large variety of behaviors theoretically linked to the motive. For example, n Achievement is related to actual mastery attempts; n Afliliation is related to sensitivity to human faces; and n Power is related to interest in being a leader and influencing others (Atkinson, 1958). An initial check on story lengths for a subsample of approximately half the children in each cultural group revealed no tendency toward significant differences in lengths of stories. Previous research (Sanders et al., 1976) found the three projective measures to relate to a cognitive style measure in an almost identical way for Anglo American and Mexican * Smith and Feld in Atkinson (1958) provide sets of stories which have been scored by an “expert” scorer. Trainees learn the scoring system and practice on the provided story sets until they reach criterion, i.e., until their scores on a practice set correlate @) greater than 90 with the “expert.” In the present study each trainee required about 60 hr of practice to reach criterion. The authors appreciate the help of Judith Wage, n Achievement; Mary Sander, n Affiliation; and Susan Blansett, n Power.

MEASURES American meaning.

children, providing

OF SOCIAL MOTIVES

some evidence for the cross-cultural

101 equivalence of their

RESULTS

The data were analyzed in three ways: (1) to assess culture, grade, and sex differences in the five cooperation-competition measures derived from the social behavior scale and the three projective motives; (2) to assess the relations between the cooperation-competition variables and the projective test variables; (3) to test the significance of the cultural differences in the cooperation-competition variables after statistically controlling for differences in the projective test variables in order to determine if the social motives inferred from the projective stories “explain” the cultural variance in social motives inferred from the social behavior scale. Culture, grade, and sex differences. To assess culture, grade, and sex differences a separate 2 x 3 x 2 (culture x grade x sex) analysis of variance was conducted on each of the eight principle dependent variables, i.e., the five cooperation-competition variables (mean giving and the frequency of choice of each of the four cooperation-competition alternatives-altruism/group enhancement, equality, superiority, and rivalry/superiority) and strength of each of the three projective motives (n Achievement, n Affiliation, n Power). Preliminary analyses revealed no significant card form or trial effect on the cooperation-competition variables. It should be noted the analyses of the five cooperation-competition variables are not independent. These analyses indicated that the Anglo American (AA) children, compared to the Mexican American (MA) children, made significantly more rivalry/superiority choices, F(1, 95) = 5.51,~ < .05 (MAA = 3.79, MhlA = 2.68), and gave significantly fewer tokens to the peer, F( 1,95) = 5.57,~ < .02 (MAA = 21.89, MYA = 24.63). In addition, the Anglo American children tended to score higher than the Mexican American children on n Achievement, F(1, 95) = 3.20, p < .08 (MAA = 1.69, MMA = 0.90). The analyses also revealed significant main effect of grade on n Achievement, F(2,95) = 4.04,~ < .05, and on n Power, F(2,95) = 8.24,~ < .OOl . Trend analyses indicated that these effects were due to significant linear trends across grade for n Achievement, F( 1,95) = 5.33, p < .05 (M = 0.60 vs 0.79 vs 1.82) and n Power, F(l, 95) = 16.7,~ < .OOl (M = 1.06 vs 2.31 vs 3.72). There were no other significant effects. Relations of projective to behavioral motives measures. To assess the relationships between social motives inferred from the projective and behavioral tasks, five separate multiple regression analyses were performed using the five cooperation-competition variables as the criterion variables; the three projective test measures and all possible two-way interactions between these measures were used as predictors. These were

102

KAGAN

AND

KNIGHT

stepwise multiple regression analyses with the exception that the main effects were forced into the equation before the interactions were entered. Preliminary analyses indicated that the relations between the two sets of social motives did not differ significantly as a function of culture, grade, or sex, so the multiple regression analyses were conducted with the data collapsed across these variables. These five analyses indicate that, compared to children low in n Achievement, the children high in n Achievement gave significantly fewer tokens to their peers, R* = .05, F(1,95) = 4.85,~ < .05, and made fewer altruism/group-enhancement choices, R2 = .04, F( 1, 95) = 4.37, p < .05. However, these main effects are moderated by significant n Achievement by n Affiliation interactions for mean giving, incremental R2 = .05, F( 1, 95) = 5.52, p < .05, and the frequency of rivalry/superiority choices, incremental RZ = .07, F( 1,95) = 7.79,~ < .Ol. To determine the nature of these interactions the total sample was divided into low, moderate, and high n Affiliation groups. Comparison of these groups indicates that the relationship of n Achievement to both mean giving and the frequency of rivalry/superiority choices is significant @ < .05) among those children low in n Affiliation (r(46) = -.34 and .29, respectively), but is not significant among those children moderate (r (29) = .02 and -.03, respectively) or high (r (32) = - .09 and . 10, respectively) in n Affiliation. There were no other significant relations between the two sets of social motives. Explanatory power of the projective motives. To determine if differences in the projective motives account for the cultural differences in the social motives inferred from the social behavior scale, the five cooperation-competition variables were each separately analyzed by a one-way analysis of covariance using the need achievement and the need achievement by need affiliation interaction vectors as covariates and culture as the independent variable. These five analyses indicate the Anglo American-Mexican American differences remain after statistically controlling for the projective vectors which relate to the experimental social motive measures: mean giving, F( 1, 103) = 4.37,~ < .05; frequency of equality choices, F( 1, 103) = 3.45, p < .lO; and frequency of rivalry/ superiority choices, F( 1, 103) = 4.63, p < .05. DISCUSSION

The pattern of results emerging from the present experiment supports the general conclusion that although an important relation exists between social motives as inferred from experimental games and projective tests, distinctly different psychological variables are assessed by the two methodologies. While the relation between the game and projective motives revealed by the experiment was not as simple as predicted, the observed interaction between affiliation and achievement motivation as they relate to cooperative-competitive motivation is consistent with the

MEASURES

OF

SOCIAL

MOTIVES

103

theoretical literature surrounding those variables. When present, moderate or high affiliation motivation eliminates the tendency for high achievement motivation to be associated with competitiveness. It appears that only in the relative absence of affiliation motivation is achievement motivation generally related to extreme competitiveness. This interaction points up the. importance of studying social motives within the natural range of variation. Had separate groups been studied, each high on either achievement motivation or affiliation motivation only, the erroneous conclusion might have been drawn that achievement motivation is necessarily associated with competitive motivation. The finding that high achievement motivation when accompanied by moderate or high affiliation motivation is not necessarily associated with competitiveness has important implications for those concerned with promoting prosocial development. If the present results have generality, it would appear that to facilitate prosocial development, the development of achievement motivation should be tempered by development of at least some affiliation motivation. The interaction of affiliation and achievement motivation occurred for mean giving and rivalry/superiority but not the other three cooperationcompetition variables. This discrepancy is perhaps interpretable as a function of the greater reliability and superior discriminatory power of the overall giving and the rivalry/superiority variables. Those two variables have the highest predictive validity across time and conditions (Knight & Kagan, 1977a) and also discriminate cultural groups better than do the remaining three cooperation-competition variables (Knight & Kagan, 1977a, 1977b). The absence of interactions involving power motivation indicated that, contrary to expectations, power motivation did not relate to extremes of cooperation or competition and did not interact with achievement and affiliation motivation to facilitate competition or cooperation. Power motivation appears less related to the cooperation-competition dimension than are the affiliation and achievement motives. Although a meaningful relation appears to exist between social motives assessed by the experimental game and projective approaches, the pattern of results makes it clear that previous cultural differences documented via each methodology are not manifestations of differences in one set of underlying social motives. The covariance analyses indicate that greater cooperativeness of Mexican American children cannot be explained as simply a manifestation of their greater affiliation motivation; the greater competitiveness of Anglo American children is not simply an expression of their greater achievement motivation. It is clear that the experimental game measures discriminate the cultural groups better than do the projective measures. This finding is somewhat surprising given that fantasy measures are often thought to be rather

104

KAGAN

AND KNIGHT

direct measures of motivational differences unintluenced by possible inhibitions of overt expression of motives. It could be argued that the larger cultural differences on the social motive game measures compared to the projective measures are due to greater inhibition of the over expression of competitiveness among Mexican American compared to Anglo American children. Several considerations weigh against this interpretation. In their recent study of behavior of children faced with the social behavior scale, Knight and Kagan (1977a) hypothesized that Mexican American children would show greater differences from Anglo American children in an active peer condition than in the imaginary peer condition, because of a tendency to inhibit overt expression of competitive motivation in a faceto-face situation. No support for that hypothesis was found. Further, children making the cooperative choices gave prosocial reasons such as “to be nice” and “to share,” so the greater prosocial behavior of Mexican American children in the social motive game is not easily interpreted as simply avoidance of overt expression of competitive motivation. Perhaps the most parsimonious interpretation of the present data, therefore, is that the social motive game assessesimportant social motives which are more directly related to cultural background than are the social motives assessed by the projective measures. In sum, the social motives assessedby the cooperation-competition game and the projective test, while related, appear to be distinct psychological variables. REFERENCES Amidjaja, I. R., & Vinacke, W. E. Achievement, nurturance, and competition in male and female triads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1%5, 2, 447-451. Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.), Motives infantasy, action, and society. Princeton. New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. Atkinson, J. W., & Walker, E. L. The affiliation motive and perceptual sensitivity to faces. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 38-41. Avellar, J., & Kagan, S. Development of competitive behaviors in Anglo-American and Mexican-American children. Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 191-198. Bern, D. J., & Lord, C. A. Template matching: A proposal for probing the ecological validity of experimental settings in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1979, 37(6), 833-846. Chaney, M. V., & Vinacke, E. Achievement and nurturance in triads varying in power distribution. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 175-181. DeCharms, R. Affiliation motivation and productivity in small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, ,1957, 55, 222-226. DeCharms, R. Enhancing motivation. New York: Irvington, 1976. Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. The effects of threat on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69(5), 587-590. Donley, R. E., & Winter, D. G. Measuring the motives of public officials at a distance: An exploratory study of American presidents. Behavioral Science, 1970, 15, 227-236. Griesinger, D. W., & Livingston, J. W. Toward a model of interpersonal motivation in experimental games. Behavioral Science, 1973, 18, 173-188.

MEASURES

OF

SOCIAL

MOTIVES

105

Groesbeck, B. C. Toward a description of personality in terms of configuration of motives. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Mofives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. Kagan, S. Social motives and behaviors of Mexican American and Anglo American children. In J. L. Martinez (Ed.), Chicano psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1977. Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. Cooperation and competition of Mexican, Mexican-American, and Anglo-American children of two ages under four instructional sets. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5(l), 32-39. Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. Experimental analysis of cooperation and competition of AngloAmerican and Mexican children. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 49-59. (a) Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. Rivalry in Anglo-American and Mexican children of two ages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 214-220. (b) Kagan, S., Zahn, G. L., & Gealy, J. Competition and school achievement among AngloAmerican and Mexican-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 432-44 1. Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. Development of prosocial and competitive behaviors in AngloAmerican and Mexican-American children, Child Development, 1977, 48, 1385-1394. (a) Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. Acculturation of prosocial and competitive behaviors among second- and third-generation Mexican-American children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1977, 8, 273-284. (b) Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. F. J. Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 922-93 1. Lansing, J. B., & Heyns, R. W. Need for affiliation and four types of communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 365-372. Madsen, M. Cooperative and competitive motivation of children in three Mexican subcultures. Psychological Reports, 1%7, 20, 1307-1320. Madsen, M. Developmental and cross-cultural differences in the cooperative and competitive behavior of young children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1971, 2, 365371. Madsen, M., & Shapira, A. Cooperative and competitive behavior of urban Afro-American, Anglo-American, Mexican-American, and Mexican village children. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3, 16-20. Marlowe, D. Psychological needs and cooperation: Competition in a two-person game. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 364. McClelland, D. C. Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington, 1975. McClelland, D. C. The two faces of power. In D. C. McClelland & R. S. Steele (Eds.), Human Motivation: A book of readings. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1970. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. A scoring manual for the achievement motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. McClintock, C. G. Social Motivation-A set of propositions. Behavioral Science, 1972, 17, 438-454. McClintock, C. Development of social motives in Anglo-American and Mexican-American children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 348-354. McClintock, C. G., & McNeel, S. P. Prior dyadic experience and monetary reward as determinants of cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5. 282-294.

106

KAGAN

AND KNIGHT

McClintock, C. G., Messick, D. M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Campos, F. T. Motivational bases of choice in three-choice decomposed games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 572-590. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Messick, D. M. A framework for social motives. Behnvioral Science, 1976, 21, 86-100. McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., Milholland, J., & Issacson, R. Student affiliation motives, teacher warmth, and academic achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1%6,

4, 457-461.

Messick, D. M., & McClintock, Journal

of Experimental A. Explorations

Murray, H. Pruitt, D. G. Motivational of Personality

C. G. Motivational

bases of choice in experimental games.

Social Psychology, 1968, 4, l-25. in personality. Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Press, 1938. processes in the decomposed prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal

and Social

Psychology,

1970, 3, 227-238.

Ramirez, M., & Castafieda, A. Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Ramirez, M., Castaiieda, A., & Herold, P. L. The relationship of acculturation to cognitive styles among Mexican Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1974, 5, 424-433. Ramirez, M., & Price-Williams, D. R. Achievement motivation in children of three ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1976, 7, 49-60. Ramirez, M., Taylor, C., & Petersen, B. Mexican-American cultural membership and adjustment to school. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 73, 3-l 1. Rapaport, A., & Chammah, A. M. Prisoner’s dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1965. Sanders, M., Scholz, J., & Kagan, S. Three social motives and field independencedependence in Anglo-American and Mexican-American children. Journal of CrossCultural

Psychology,

1976, 7(4),

451-462.

Terhune, K. W. Motives, situation, and interpersonal Journal

of Personality

and Social

Psychology

conflict within prisoner’s dilemma.

Monograph

Supplement,

I%&

8, l-25.

Veroff, J. Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement motives in children. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1%9. Veroff, J. A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, New Jersey: Nostrand, 1958. Vinacke, W. E. Variables in experimental games: Toward a field theory. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 293-318. Winter, D. G. The power motive. New York: The Free Press, 1973. Winterbottom, M. R. The relation of need for achievement to learning experiences in independence and mastery. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958.

REFERENCE NOTE I. Ramirez, M., & Price-Williams, groups

in the United

Cruz, 1978.

States.

D. R. Need afiliation and need guidance in three ethnic Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa