A nonprojective measure of achievement motivation was used to investigate the relationship among need for achievement (n Ach), labor turnover, and occupations in New Zealand. Questionnaire results from 3 IS entrepreneurs, engineers, accountants, and middle managers revealed low turnover among high n Ach self-employed subjects. High-turnover subjects displayed significantly higher achievement motivation levels than low-turnover subjects. Among engineers, accountants, and middle managers, those with high n Ach had high labor mobility rates. Results were supportive of McClelland's theory and demonstrated the feasibility of extension of the model through use of nonprojective research methods. The concept of need for achievement (n Ach) has been extensively developed by McClelland and his colleagues (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Using projective techniques to measure achievement motivation, researchers have extended the study of n Ach to many diverse cultures (Heckhausen, 1967; Hines, 1972; Storm, Anthony, & Porsolt, 196S). The Thematic Apperception Test, which has been the prime means of measuring n Ach, has been criticized for practical limitations (Smith & Field, 1958) that have inhibited more widespread exploration of the theory. Problems of interrater reliability, rigorous scorer-training requirements, and lengthy scoring procedures have led to the search for nonprojective techniques to supplement the Thematic Apperception Test (Costello, 1967; Hermans, 1970; Holmes & Tyler, 1968; Lynn, 1969). The Lynn Achievement Motivation Questionnaire, an eight-item inventory, has been used with promising results on four continents (Iwawaki & Lynn, 1972; Melikian, Ginsberg, Ciiceloglu, & Lynn, 1971). The work of Holmes and Tyler indicated that n Ach is a conscious phenomenon and therefore subject to direct self-report. These findings provided experimental evidence that questionnaire measures of n Ach could elicit valid data, thus clearing the path for large-scale research on achievement motivation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
George H. Hines (1973) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: