Table 1.
Summary of Key Study Characteristics of Reviewed Studies
| Study | Study design | N (F) | Study features (mean age) | Quality score | Endocrine response (data points) | Motive measurea | Motivational construct (significance/direction) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motive-disposition theory | ||||||||
| Dabbs et al. (1990) | CS | 110 (53) | College students (n.r.) | 6/10 | T (1) | TAT | nPow (n.s.) | |
| Edelstein et al. (2010) | CS | 102 (44) | Undergraduate students (18.79) | 8/10 | E (1) | PSE | nAff (n.s.) | |
| Jemmott et al. (1983) | Long. | 64 (16) | Dental students (23.4); 10-month longitudinal | 7/10 | sIgA (5) | TAT | nAff (+), nPow (–) | The relationship between nAff and sIgA was higher than the relationship between nPow and sIgA across all time points. |
| McClelland et al. (1980) | Long. | 27 (0) | College sophomores (n.r.) | 6/10 | sIgA (2) | PSE | nPow (n.r.), nAff (n.r.) | The direct relationships independent of stress were not reported. |
| McClelland et al. (1982) | CS | 133 (0) | Male prisoners (28.5) | 8/10 | sIgA (1) | TAT | nPow (n.r.), nAff (n.r.) | The direct relationships independent of stress were not reported. |
| McClelland et al. (1985) | Long. | 46 (17) | College students (n.r.); examination stress | 7/10 | sIgA, NE (3) | TAT | IgA: nPow (–), nAff (n.s.) NE: nPow (+), nAff (n.s.) |
sIgA: nPow-dominant participants experienced a reduction in sIgA 105 min after the exam. This difference was significant compared with the baseline and compared with nAff-dominant participants. NE: Increased in nPow-dominant participants after the exam. |
| McClelland et al. (1987) | Exp. | 61 (30) | University students (19.0); emotional-arousal film: nPow vs. nAff | 6/13 | C, EP, NE (2) | PSE | nPow (n.s.), nAff (n.s.) | |
| McClelland & Kirshnit (1988) | Exp. | 132 (n.r.) | College students (n.r.); emotional-arousal film: nPow vs. nAff | 9/13 | sIgA (3) | TAT | nPow (n.s.), nAff (+) | |
| Oxford et al. (2017) | Exp. | 326 (161) | University students (21); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 11/13 | C, E, P, T | PSE | T and nPow: win NC (+), loss male (+), loss NC (–) E and nPow: loss NC (–) |
Post hoc results revealed that nPow predicted higher cortisol for men in losing teams and that there was a negative association between nPow and cortisol in individual women. In women only, nAff predicted a postcontest decline in progesterone in individual contests, and nAff weakly predicted increasing progesterone for team contests. |
| Schultheiss et al. (1999) | Exp. | 42 (n.r.) | University students (20.26); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 8/13 | T (3) | PSE | pPow: win (+), loss (n.s.), p + sPow: win (–), loss (n.s.) | pPow refers to participants for whom sPow was absent; p + sPow refers to participants with high levels of pPow who also exhibited sPow. |
| Schultheiss & Rohde (2002) | Exp. | 66 (0) | Vocational college students (23.83); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 9/13 | T (6) | PSE | nPow win (n.r.), loss (n.r.) | Direct effect of condition; nPow and testosterone were not reported; nPow predicted a significant increase in testosterone from Times 3 to 5 among winners with low levels of inhibition. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2003) | Long. | 54 (18) | University students (n.r.) | 7/10 | T, P, E (3) | PSE | nAff (n.r.), nPow (n.r.) | The study examined contextual effects related to menstrual-cycle and relationship status. Direct relationships independent of these variables were not reported. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2004) | Exp. | 60 (39) | Undergraduate students (19.78); emotional-arousal film: nAff vs. nPow vs. control | 10/13 | P, T (3) | PSE | nAff (n.s.), nPow (n.s.) | Main effect for experimental condition not significant. Post hoc analysis revealed that the nAff condition experienced higher postfilm progesterone levels than the neutral condition. Further post hoc analysis of Time 5 found that baseline testosterone predicted decreased postfilm testosterone in the nAff condition, increased testosterone in the nPow condition in males, and decreased nPow testosterone for women. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2005, Study 1) | Exp. | 95 (0) | Undergraduate students (19.67); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 10/13 | T (6) | PSE | nPow win (n.s.), nPow loss (n.s.) | Main effect for experimental condition was not significant. Post hoc analysis revealed a negative correlation between nPow and testosterone in the losing condition and a positive nPow/testosterone trend in the losing condition. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2005, Study 2) | Exp. | 75 (75) | Undergraduate students (20.82); contest outcome: win vs. loss | — | T (6) | PSE | nPow win (n.s.), nPow loss (n.s.) | Main effect for experimental condition was not significant. Post hoc analysis revealed a positive nPow/testosterone association in the losing condition at Time 4. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2012) | CS | 92 (50) | University students (23) | 9/10 | C, P (1) | PSE/PGI | nPow (n.r.), nAff (n.r.), nAch (n.r.) | Direct associations were not reported—only the difference between explicit and implicit motivation. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2014, Study 1) | Long. | 108 (53) | University students (20) | 10/13 | C (2) | PSE | nAch (–) | Reanalysis of Wirth, Welsh, & Schultheiss (2006) results, excluding win/loss manipulation. |
| Schultheiss et al. (2014, Study 2) | Exp. | 62 (31) | University students (23.87); TSST vs. control | — | C (2) | PSE | nAch (–) | nAch predicted a reduced cortisol response to TSST that was absent in the control task. |
| Slatcher et al. (2011) | CS | 74 (0) | Psychology undergraduates (n.r.) | 9/10 | T (1) | See note | nPow (n.s.) | nPow was determined by four judges who assessed dominance behavior via videotape. |
| Stanton & Schultheiss (2007) | Exp. | 49 (49) | University students (19.96); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 10/13 | T, E (6) | PSE | T: nPow win (n.s.), loss (n.s.); E: nPow win (n.s.), loss (n.s.) | Data drawn from Wirth et al. (2006, Study 2). A post hoc positive association between nPow and estradiol was observed in the winning condition when aggregating Times 4–6. |
| Stanton & Edelstein (2009) | Long.b | 40 (40) | University students (18.58) | 11/13 | E (2) | PSE | nPow (+) | |
| Vongas & Al Hajj (2017, Study 1) | Exp. | 84 (0) | Undergraduate students (22.01); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 11/13 | T (3) | PSE | pPow win (–), loss (n.s.) | pPow moderated the relationship between competition outcome and testosterone change. Increased pPow in the winning condition attenuated the decrease in testosterone. |
| Vongas & Al Hajj (2017, Study 2) | Exp. | 72 (0) | Undergraduate students (21.39); contest outcome: win vs. loss | — | T (3) | PSE | pPow win (–), loss (n.s.) | pPow moderated the relationship between competition outcome and testosterone change. Increased pPow in the winning condition attenuated the decrease in testosterone. |
| Wegner et al. (2014) | Exp. | 59 (32) | High school students (14.8); task: physical vs. psychosocial vs. control | 11/13 | C (2) | OMT | nAff: psychosocial (–), physical (n.s.), control (n.s.) | The psychosocial task is the most appropriate measure as it is unlikely the physical task (15 mins moderate running) or control would be sufficient to provoke a cortisol response. |
| Wegner et al. (2015) | Exp. | 57 (33) | High school students (14.8); task: physical vs. psychosocial vs. control | 11/13 | C (2) | OMT | nPow: psychosocial (+), physical (n.s.), control (–) | The psychosocial task is the most appropriate measure because it is unlikely that the physical task (15 min of moderate running) or control would be sufficient to provoke a cortisol response. |
| Wiemers et al. (2015) | Exp. | 72 (34) | University sample (n.r.); TSST vs. control | 10/13 | C, sAA (4) | PSE | C × nPow (+), C × nAch (n.s.), C × nAff (n.s.), sAA × nPow (+), sAA × nAch (n.s.), sAA × nAff (n.s.) | |
| Wirth & Schultheiss (2006) | Exp. | 87 (38) | Undergraduate sample (19.7); emotional-arousal film: HoC vs. FoR vs. control | 10/13 | C, P (3) | PSE | C × nPow (n.s.), C × nAff (+), C × nAch (n.s.), P × nPow (n.s.), P × nAff (+), P × nAch (n.s.) | nAff positively predicted postfilm progesterone in the FoR condition. |
| Wirth et al. (2006, Study 1) | Exp. | 66 (0) | Vocational college (23.8); contest outcome: win vs. loss | 9/13 | C (6) | PSE | nPow win (n.s.), loss (+) | |
| Wirth et al. (2006, Study 2) | Exp. | 108 (53) | University students (20.3); contest outcome: win vs. loss | — | C (6) | PSE | nPow win (n.s.), loss (n.s.) | Post hoc analysis aggregated pretest (Times 1–3) and posttest (Times 4–6) cortisol. nPow positively predicted cortisol response in males in the losing condition but not in winning condition. Post hoc analysis revealed evidence of an effect in participants tested after 2 p.m. |
| Yang et al. (2015) | Exp. | 50 (26) | University students (M = 19.9, F = 18.8); D2 test of attention: positive vs. negative vs. no feedback | 11/13 | C (2) | PSE | nAch (n.s.) | Study was experimental; however, the manipulation was not related to motivation. Residualized cortisol was significantly associated with the positive feedback condition. |
| Self-determination theory | ||||||||
| Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani (2011) | CS | 120 (92) | Junior athletes (14.51) | 8/10 | sIgA (1) | See note | Need satisfaction (n.s.), need thwarting (+) | Need satisfaction assessed using a composite scale comprising IMI, NfRS, and NfA. Need thwarting assessed using PNTS. |
| Quested et al. (2011) | Long. | 61 (41) | Ballet dancers (19.3); challenge vs. threat appraisal | 9/10 | C (5) | See note | Need satisfaction (–) | Need satisfaction was not significant when challenge appraisals were included in the analysis. Need satisfaction assessed using a composite scale comprising IMI, NfRS, and NfA. |
| Reeve & Tseng (2011) | Exp. | 78 (53) | Undergraduates (n.r.); puzzle solving: autonomous vs. controlled vs. neutral | 9/13 | C (3) | LCQ | Autonomy-supportive (–), controlled motivation (+), neutral motivation (n.s.) | |
| Sieber et al. (2016) | Exp. | 69 (34) | Middle school children (14.16) | 11/13 | sAA (3) | PSE | Autonomy-supportive (–), autonomy-restrictive (+), control group (+) | Study integrated SDT (need satisfaction) and MDT (need strength). Experimental manipulation check was not conducted. |
| Sørensen et al. (2015) | Exp. | 97 (85) | Health-care professionals (M = 44.5, F = 42.5) | 13/13 | C (4) | IMI | Intrinsic motivation (n.r.) | The study measured both cortisol and the IMI; however, the two measures were dependent variables. The relationship between the two was not an aim of the study and was not reported. |
| Achievement goal theory | ||||||||
| Breske et al. (2017) | Exp. | 38 (0) | University students (20.68); ego-oriented environment | 10/13 | C (5) | PMCEQ | Control group (+), task-orientation intervention (–) | Significant Intervention × Time interaction. Cortisol response increased in the control condition compared with the task-orientation intervention. |
| Hogue et al. (2013) | Exp. | 107 (61) | University students (19.89); juggling task: task vs. ego | 10/13 | C (7) | PMCSQ | Ego orientation (+), task orientation (–) | Significant Climate × Time interaction. Cortisol response increased in the ego condition compared with the task condition. |
| Hogue et al. (2017) | Exp. | 47 (26) | Middle school students (11.98); juggling task: task vs. ego | 11/13 | C (4) | PMCSQ | Ego orientation (+), task orientation (–) | Significant Climate × Time interaction. Cortisol response increased in the ego condition compared with the task condition. |
| Rozek (2014) | Exp. | 78 (34) | University students (n.r.) | 8/13 | C (4) | Not reported | Mastery environment (n.s.), performance environment (n.s.) | Experimental manipulation involved participants reading instructions that emphasized either mastery or performance goals to create the environment. |
| Implicit theory | ||||||||
| Calvete et al. (2019) | Exp. | 503 (243) | Middle school students (14.53) | 13/13 | C (3), DHEA (3) | ETPB | Incremental beliefs (n.s.) | Overall intervention effect was absent; however, a significant attenuated DHEA response was observed between conditions for middle school children in Grade 8. |
| Lee et al. (2019) | Long. | 499 (272) | High school students (14.2) | 10/10 | C (11) | ToIS | Incremental beliefs (–), entity beliefs (+) | Entity theory of intelligence predicted increased cortisol when grades declined. Incremental theory predicted lower cortisol across days and lower cortisol after an intense academic stressor. |
| Yeager et al. (2016, Study 1) | Exp. | 60 (27) | High school students (15.61); learning task: incremental vs. control | 13/13 | C (2) | Not measured | Incremental beliefs (–) | Cortisol declined significantly in the implicit theory incremental intervention compared with the control group. Motive measure (manipulation check) was not conducted. |
| Yeager et al. (2016, Study 3) | Exp. | 205 (n.r.) | High school students (n.r.); learning task: incremental vs. control | — | C, DHEA (6) | Not measured | Incremental beliefs (n.s.) | Overall, the intervention effect was absent; however a significant attenuated cortisol and DHEA response was observed between conditions on days 8 and 9. Motive measure (manipulation check) was not conducted. |
| Reversal theory | ||||||||
| Cuevas et al. (2014) | Long. | 94 (94) | Breast cancer survivors (56.2) | 8/10 | C (10) | AMSP | Telic/paratelic (n.s.), conformist/negativistic (n.s.), mastery/sympathy (n.s.), autic/alloic (n.s.) | Participants displayed telic, conformist, sympathetic, and alloic dominance. |
| Filaire et al. (2007) | Long. | 10 (0) | Elite paragliders (27.2) | 7/10 | C (6) | TDS | Serious-mindedness (n.s.), planning orientation (n.s.), arousal avoidance (n.s.) | The only significant finding across six times was association with serious-mindedness at Time 4 (r = −0.73). |
| Thatcher et al. (2003) | Long. | 23 (1) | Skydivers (n.r.) | 7/10 | C (2) | AMSP | Telic/paratelic (n.s.), negativistic/conformist (n.s.), arousal seeking/arousal avoidance (n.s.) | Participants displayed conformist and arousal-seeking dominance. They were neither telic- or paratelic-dominant. |
Note: AMPS = Apter Motivational Style Profile (Apter et al., 1998); C = cortisol; CS = cross-sectional; DHEA = dehydroepiandrosterone; E = estradiol; EP = epinephrine; ETPB = entity theory of personality beliefs (Yeager, Trzesniewski, Tirri, Nokelainen, & Dweck, 2011); Exp. = experimental; F = females; FoR = fear of rejection; HoC = hope of closeness; IMI = Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994); LCQ = Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996); Long. = longitudinal; M = males; MDT, motive-disposition theory; nAch = need for achievement; nAff = need for affiliation; NC = normally cycling women; NE = norepinephrine; NfA = need for autonomy (Deci et al., 2001); NfRS = Need for Relatedness Scale (Richer & Vallerand, 1998); nPow = need for power; n.r. = not reported; OMT = Operant Multimotive Test (Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999); P = progesterone; PGI = Personal Goals Inventory (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grässman, 1998); PMCEQ = Perceived Motivational Climate in Exercise Questionnaire (Moore, Brown, & Fry, 2015); PMCSQ = Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (Selfriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992); PNTS = Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011); pPow = personal need for power; PSE = picture-story exercise (Schultheiss, Liening, & Schad, 2008); sAA = salivary α-amylase; SDT, self-determination theory; sIgA = salivary secretory immunoglobulin A; sPow = social need for power; T = testosterone; TAT = Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1943); TDS = Telic Dominance Scale (Morgatroyd, Rushton, Apter, & Ray, 1978); ToIS = Theory of Intelligence Scale (Dweck, 2016); TSST = Trier Social Stress Test; – = negative association; + = positive association.
a
For experimental studies, this represents the manipulation check.
b
Stanton and Edelstein (2009) took saliva measures at two time points; however, they were within an hour or one another, and the two measures were collapsed for analysis with a correlation reported between estradiol and nPow.