The main similarity between motives and traits is that they both influence behaviour in the way they are reflected in actions. For example, the need for affiliation is the motive to spend time with others (Carver and Scheier, 2000); people with a strong affiliation motive display this in their behaviour by actively engaging in social activities. People with a high level of the trait extraversion act very lively, sociable and impulsive. However, some would argue that whether a trait influences behaviour depends on the situation. This approach is termed situationism, as is based on the assumption that behaviour is determined by environmental factors and not internal personality factors such as traits (Eysenck 2002). For example, a person may behave shyly in front of strangers but not with friends. A given trait may not be expected to operate all the time, only in situations where it is relevant. Allport (1937, as cited in Carver) believed that unlike motives, people have contradictory traits, so different traits are aroused by different situations. People can choose and influence the situations they enter, and they don’t just react to the situations forced upon them. In spite of the successes of situationism, it does not provide an adequate basis for understanding individual differences in behaviour (Eysenck 2002). However interactionism suggests the idea that personality traits and situations interact with each other to influence behaviour (Eysenck 2002). For example, why might a person have a high level of stress? One answer might be because that individual is susceptible to stress (trait approach); or another answer might be that exposure to a stressful situation (situationist approach) will create a high level of stress. But the interactionist approach would argue it is the interaction of the individual’s stress-prone personality and being faced with a stressful situation which causes a high stress level. Research on how a stressful situation interacts with people high in trait anxiety causing anxiety (Hodges 1968, as cited in Eysenck 2002) supports this theory.
The above argument can be applied to the motivational theory. Motives are influenced by internal needs but also by the environment and different situations, termed press (Carver and Scheier 2000). “A press is an external condition that creates a desire to obtain or avoid something” (Carver and Scheier 2000, pp94). For example, the need for food creates a biological hunger motive, which is satisfied by eating a sandwich. However when somebody presents you with a pizza, you are no longer as satisfied. The motive to eat has been regenerated, not by a need but by a press.
Another similarity between motive and trait theories is that it is agreed that no single motive or trait is the only determinant of personality (Carver and Scheier 2000). Personality is a system of multiple needs and traits, some are easier to see and measure than others. But what traits and motives are basic to personality? Motives can be difficult to measure because people don’t always openly display their needs. Manifest (conscious) needs are easy to access because they can be observed in actions. These are measured through observation and also self-report, for example the need for food. Latent (unconscious) needs are those that are not openly displayed. These are most frequently assessed indirectly by the Thematic Apperception Test. The TAT requires you to view a set of ambiguous pictures and tell a story about each one. The themes in the stories reflect your latent motivations; your unconscious needs will show up in thoughts generated from your imagination. TAT motive measures do not correlate highly with direct questionnaire motive measures as each predicts different kinds of behaviour. The basic needs that appeared from the TAT were the need for the need for achievement, the need for power, the need for affiliation and the need for intimacy. Cattell (1947, as cited in Hayes and Orrell 1994) used Factor Analysis to determine the basic traits. This is an advanced statistical technique used to discover which of the many traits are similar and tend to co-occur so they can be reduced to a smaller set of basic traits. This is done by looking at correlations of many measurements, usually self-reports. Using this tool, Cattell concluded that there were 16 basic traits of personality (16PF). Eysenck (1967, as cited in Eysenck 2002) later proposed that there were three superfactors. A criticism of trait theories is that the decisions about what personality dimensions to study and measure are arbitrary. Although many trait theorists have used different starting points and different measures, they still arrive at similar conclusions about the basic personality traits. It later emerged that there are five personality factors, referred to as the Five Factor Model – extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotionality, intellect. However there is still great controversy over these, particularly the naming of the factor labels. It is useful to note that interactions between motives and traits have been studied, for example affiliation with extraversion-introversion.
One difference between motives and traits is consistency. Motives change with circumstances over time whereas traits are usually stable (Carver and Scheier 2000). Trait psychology was developed to account for stability in behaviour across time and situations; however people’s behaviour sometimes fails to display this consistency (Carver and Scheier 2000). Research by Helson and Moane (1987, as cited in Carver and Scheier 2000) concluded that most personality traits remain fairly consistent over long periods despite pressures from a person’s environment. This is a strong advantage to the trait theory and allows us to predict traits more easily than motives. Murray first believed that motives derive from biological and psychological needs making them relatively stable. However, McClelland (1965, as cited in Carver and Scheier 2000) believes that motives are learned. This supports that motives can be altered relatively easily, especially when influenced by needs and press. Perhaps motives change but the basic needs that cause these motives remain stable.
Motives refer to the wishes, desires and goals people would like to bring about, whereas traits channel ways in which motives are expressed in particular actions (Winter et al. 1998). Trait theorists are more concerned about describing the structure of personality than describing the mechanics by which personality traits exist. Traits label and measure a person’s personality but don’t tell you anything about how or why a person behaves in that way. In contrast, the motive theory looks at motivational processes and how they influence behaviour – intrapersonal functioning (Carver and Scheier 2000).
In conclusion, although traits and motives have many similarities, they are two separate personality concepts which each play an important but different role in influencing behaviour. In order to understand personality psychology it is necessary to accept both trait and motive theories.
References
Carver, C. S, & Scheier M. F. (2000). Perspectives on Personality. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Eysenck, M.W, (2002). Individual Differences - Normal and Abnormal. Psychology Press.
Hayes, N. & Orrell, S. (1994). Psychology an Introduction. Longman.
Winter, D., John, O. P., Stewart, A., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230-250.
