CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 965Human Behavior and MotivationPsychological Testing and AssessmentEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.

McClelland, David C.·1985·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/0003-066x.40.7.812
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

According to general behavior theory, motives, probability of success (or skill), and incentive value are three independent organismic determinants of excitatory potential (or the impulse to act) that combine with situational opportunity to determine response strength or response probability. Much con- fusion has been introduced into human motivation theory by investigators 'failure to measure separately motive strength (from coding operant thought) and incentive value (from value attitude questionnaires) and by their misuse of the term motivation. Moti- vation properly refers to an aroused motive, but they have broadened it to mean excitatory potential, which is determined partly by the aroused motive and partly by probability of success, incentive value, and other variables. Research is reviewed that dem- onstrates the importance of motivation, incentive value, and probability of success, independently mea- sured, for predicting achievement performance and the frequency with which affiliation acts are per- formed. Both theory and experiment lead to the conclusions that motive strength, particularly in re- lation to the strength of other motives in the person, is the more important determinant of operant act frequency, that incentive value is the more important determinant of cognitively based choices, that motive strength and probability of success combine multi- plicatively to predict response strength or probability, and that all determinants, plus this last interaction, together account for over 75% of the variation in operants like affiliative act frequency. The remainder of the variation is readily attributable to environ- mental opportunities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.40.7.812

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 965

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McClelland, D. C.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
McClelland, David C.
ORCID
McClelland, David C.
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1985-07
Volume
40
Issue
7
Pages
812-825
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/0003-066x.40.7.812
OpenAlex
W2104724310
Cited by
965
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 37
FWCI
11.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Behavior and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
motivation theories, incentive value, success probability, operant behavior, response strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review