Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-024-10071-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

The role of parenting style for the development of the implicit power
motive in children
Ellen Kerpen1 · Holger Busch1 · Benedikt Schulte im Busch1,2 · Jan Hofer1

Accepted: 5 April 2024 / Published online: 15 May 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Findings show that both parents’ reported parenting and children’s perception of parenting play a role in predicting a vast
number of developmental outcomes. Available research on the development of implicit motives in children, for example,
shows a link to early parenting strategies. However, research on effects of parenting on the development of implicit
motives is sparse. In the present study, we examined the role of authoritarian and positive parenting (parents’ reports) for
the development of the implicit power motive (nPower) in children, along with the moderating role of perceived paren-
tal psychological control and warmth/support (children’s report). We hypothesized that authoritarian parenting shows a
negative longitudinal association with nPower in children, particularly when children also perceive the parenting as psy-
chologically controlling. In contrast, we assumed a positive longitudinal association of positive parenting with nPower in
children, particularly when children also perceive the parenting as warm/supportive. Data of 66 German children (25 girls)
and parents were assessed at two measurement points. Children were 6/7 years old at t1. Analyses partially support our
hypotheses. The higher parental reports of authoritarian parenting were, the lower was children’s nPower 3.5 years later.
This association was only significant among children perceiving high or medium levels (vs. low) of parental psychological
control. We found neither significant effects of parents’ nor children’s reports of positive/warm parenting nor a significant
interaction of the two. Findings are discussed with respect to existing models of the development and stability of implicit
motives and the role of parenting for implicit motive development.

Keywords Implicit power motive · Parenting · Childhood · Picture story exercise

When it comes to what drives human behavior, implicit to contribute to a better understanding of the development
motives have been an important factor in research for a of implicit motives by focusing on the motive domain of
long time and are experiencing a revival in recent years power. In detail, we investigated effects of parenting styles
(e.g., Schultheiss & Köllner, 2021). Among other character- reported by parents and children on the strength of the
istics, their affective character is important when examing implicit power motive in children over the course of approx-
their orienting and directing function on behavior across the imately 3.5 years.
lifespan (McClelland et al., 1989; Schultheiss & Köllner,
2014). Developmental antecedences of implicit motives,
however, remain largely uncharted since McClelland and Theoretical background
Pilon’s pioneering study (1983), in which the role of cer-
tain child-rearing practices for implicit motive development Implicit motives
were longitudinally studied. In the present study, we aim
Traditionally, most motivational research focusses on
the so-called “Big Three” (e.g., McClelland, 1985): the
Ellen Kerpen achievement motive, that is, striving for a standard of excel-
[email protected] lence (McClelland et al., 1953), the affiliation-intimacy
motive, that is, preoccupation with (re-)establishing and
1
Department of Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Trier maintaining interpersonal relationships (Heyns et al., 1958),
University, 54286 Trier, Germany
and the power motive, that is, desire for having an impact
2
Present address: University of Münster, Münster, Germany

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 265

or influencing others (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973). achievement and power motive in adult participants about
Implicit motives are assumed to develop rather early in the 26–27 years later. Concerning the domain of power, the
preverbal stages of ontogenesis and are represented in an authors found the following link: Those participants with
unconscious manner, thus, they are not accessible to self- a high implicit power motive (nPower) in their adult life
reflection and self-report (e.g., McClelland et al., 1989). had parents that dealt leniently with children’s aggressive
Implicit motives are closely linked to affects and, more and sexual behavior at the time of the initial interview.
precisely, can be understood as rather stable dispositions to Even though the authors did not specify a particular par-
experience certain classes of incentives as rewarding or dis- enting style, it seems plausible that those parents were
incentives as frustrating, respectively (Schultheiss & Köll- not only tolerant concerning these specific behaviors, but
ner, 2014). overall displayed a parenting style lacking overly strict and
authoritarian characteristics. Examples for characteristics of
Parenting style and development of implicit authoritarian parenting include particular assertive strate-
motives gies, that is, rigid rules, frequent commands, high parental
authority, overriding or disregarding children’s needs and
To this day, systematic and longitudinal research on the interests, and high control (e.g., Reichle & Franiek, 2009).
development of implicit motives is lacking, but there are Rosen and D’Andrade (1959) studied parenting practices as
hints at the role of certain parenting characteristics. The predictors of the implicit achievement motive. For example,
combination of certain parenting characteristics, as well as they found that boys high in implicit achievement motiva-
parenting behaviors or attitudes, can be subsumed under tion had parents that were more likely to set standards of
parenting styles (Durbin et al., 1993; Reichle & Franiek, excellence for them and tended to react affectively stronger
2009). An authoritarian parenting style, for instance, is char- to their sons’ performance. In a similar notion, Rosen (1962)
acterized by a restrictive adult-oriented control and a lack of found that the overall relatively low levels of implicit
warmth and support, as well as rigorous punishments (e.g., achievement motivation in Brazilian boys could partly be
Chang et al., 2003). A positive parenting style, on the other attributed to a family environment that punishes (or at least
hand, is often described as a warm, supportive and child- does not reward) children’s striving for independence and
centered parenting approach that ensures the child feels autonomy.
accepted and understood (e.g., Reichle & Franiek, 2009). It In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the
has to be noted, however, that the absence of an authoritarian stability of implicit motives across the life span (see Denz-
parenting style cannot per se be equated with a positive par- inger & Brandstätter, 2018). The authors report relatively
enting style (Reichle & Franiek, 2009). Likewise, positive inconsistent correlations of age and implicit motive scores
parenting does not per se reflect an authoritative parenting across various cross-sectional studies with adults. Studies
style, as its conceptualization does not include the imple- with more than one measurement point usually look at retest
mentation of rules but focuses on the warmth component. reliabilities of implicit motive measures but only span over
While it is argued that parenting styles remain largely a relatively short period of time. However, Denzinger and
stable across stages of children’s development (e.g., Pat- Brandstätter (2018) highlight the importance of many dif-
terson, 1998), there are clear differences in parenting styles ferent learning experiences and environmental influences
between parents (e.g., Durbin et al., 1993). Findings show over the life-span for the plasticity of implicit motives.
that parenting styles are associated with numerous behav- Hence, it seems crucial to implement multiple measurement
ioral outcomes in children. For example, children’s early points over a longer period of time, that is, an individual’s
experiences of psychological control relate to negative out- life-span, to identify possible (longitudinal) influences on
comes such as adult delinquent and antisocial behavior (for the strength of a given implicit motive. It is postulated that
an overview of detrimental effects of parental psychologi- implicit motives have both a dispositional, trait-like charac-
cal control on children, see for example Barber & Harmon, ter, that is, stability over time and across situations, and at the
2002). same time are prone to situation-specific cues (McClelland,
Despite the postulate of the early shaping of implicit 1985; Schultheiss & Köllner, 2014). This is in line with the
motives, research examining effects of childhood experi- notion that implicit motives develop through the repeated
ences on motive development is almost nonexistent. To linkage of incentives or rewards, e.g., positive affect, and
our knowledge, there are only very few studies examining certain behaviors or situational cues, e.g., exerting influence
effects of early childhood experiences on strength of implicit (McClelland & Pilon, 1983; Schultheiss & Köllner, 2014;
motives and most of them focus on implicit achievement see also Denzinger & Brandstätter, 2018, for an overview).
motivation. McClelland and Pilon (1983) found an asso- On the other hand, the repeated punishment of behavior,
ciation of certain parenting techniques with the implicit especially in a non-responsive and non-child-oriented way,

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
266 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

should lead to frustration and eventually to a decrease in When examining effects of parenting, however, it seems
behavior. In line with the notion of (dis-)incentive fueled obvious that the recipients’ perception also matters. The
conditioning, we hypothesize that parenting style plays an perception of parenting as well as its interpretation often
important role when it comes to the development of nPower differ between parents and children or adolescents. Typi-
in children. Arguably, a parenting style minimizing chil- cally, only a modest correlation between both measurements
dren’s autonomy and independence might generally inhibit is observed (e.g., Dimler et al., 2017; Taber, 2010). More
the development of implicit motives irrespective of motive specifically, parents tend to report less negative and more
domain; however, authoritarian parenting might be of par- positive parenting behavior than their children (Guastaferro
ticular importance when it comes to nPower, since it is the et al., 2021).
only motive characterized by the need to have an impact on Moreover, findings indicate that recipients’ and parents’
other people’s emotions and behavior. The repeated frustra- perception of parenting uniquely contribute to explain dif-
tion of the child’s need for impact is a focal factor in both ferences in adolescents’ problem behavior (e.g., Macken-
authoritarian or controlling parenting and nPower: children bach et al., 2014). Dimler and colleagues (2017) report that
repeatedly experience that any attempts at influencing (both not only different perceptions of parenting style, but also
consciously and unconsciously) their parents fail, as parents the direction of discrepancy matters, that is, the effects on
do not tolerate any negotiations. Thus, situational cues for adolescent behavior were particularly pronounced if adoles-
successfully realizing nPower are lacking. Over time, any cents rated their parents’ behavior as less warm and more
attempts to have an impact or to be included in discussions negative than parents did.
or decisions may become associated with negative affect or
the absence of positive affect. Given the (persisting) lack The present research
of situational cues for successfully realizing nPower, a low
motive disposition emerges, as the child should eventually Building on aforementioned findings on the development
orient their behavior away from these attempts. of implicit motives, we expect a link between authoritar-
On the other hand, positive parenting typically lacks ian parenting and the implicit power motive in children.
strict enforcement of rules and is characterized by a respon- Precisely, we assume that a strict parenting style overruling
sive way of dealing with children’s basic needs (Reichle & children’s needs for autonomy and independence (reported
Franiek, 2009; even sexual and aggressive behavior, see by parents) at the first measurement point when children
McClelland & Pilon, 1983). Hence, children’s needs will be were aged between 6 and 7 years is associated with a less
satisfied, leading to the experience of positive affect and over pronounced nPower in children approximately 3.5 years
time, possibly to a consolidation of the association of incen- later. In other words, a higher nPower in children is sup-
tive (i.e., power-themed behavior) and reward (i.e., positive posed to be associated with a parenting style characterized
affect). Children of parents characterized by low authoritar- by low (psychological) control and an overall rather flat
ian or controlling parental strategies should experience many family hierarchy.
situational cues for realizing nPower as rules are negotiable Furthermore, we expect that the effect of authoritarian
and influence on parents is feasible. Hence, power-related parenting on children’s nPower is moderated by children’s
needs (i.e., exerting influence, having an impact) can be met perception of parenting. Specifically, we hypothesize a sig-
when children grow up in an environment characterized by nificant association of authoritarian parenting with nPower
positive parenting. Consequently, power-related behavior is in children only if children also perceive their parents to
repeatedly associated with positive affect/rewards, that is, exert high psychological control on them. Psychological
reinforcing the orientation towards power-related behav- control is assumed to have a significant conceptual overlap
ior as an important aspect of nPower (McClelland, 1985). with authoritarian parenting, as both are characterized by
Drawing from research regarding operant conditioning, a strict rule enforcement, high parental authority, and a lack
reinforcement of certain behaviors by repeated (affective) of responsiveness to children’s needs (Reichle & Franiek,
rewards should lead to a consolidation of behavior and, in 2009; Reitzle et al., 2001).
the case of implicit motives, a consolidation of affectively Regarding positive parenting, we assume a positive asso-
charged needs (McClelland, 1985; Schultheiss & Köllner, ciation with children’s nPower approximately 3.5 years
2014). later. Precisely, a parenting characterized by a positive and
responsive style should foster the development of nPower.
Parenting styles: parent- vs. child-report Again, we expect this association to be moderated by per-
ceived warm/supportive parenting reported by the children.
For many years, research has focused on parents’ reports of Specifically, we assume a significant association of posi-
their parenting or relied on observation of parental behavior. tive parenting with children’s nPower only if children also

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 267

perceive their parents to be responsive and supportive (to first measurement point, all participants attended primary
their needs). school; at the second measurement point, 10 children
still attended primary school (grade 4), while 56 children
attended the first grade of secondary school (grade 5). A
Method post-hoc power analysis using G*Power version 3.1.9.7
yielded a power of 1-β = 0.849. To obtain a power of 1-
Procedure β = 0.900, with an expected f2 = 0.256 (for similar effect
sizes reported in research on implicit motives in childhood,
Our sample was drawn from a pool of participants that had see, e.g., Schattke et al., 2011; Spengler et al., 2020a, b;
previously taken part in a longitudinal project focusing on Raihala & Hansen, 2019), 75 participants would have been
implicit motives in childhood and their developmental cor- needed.
relates (see Spengler et al., 2020a, b, also for details on
sample recruitment). After completion of the project, 120 Measurements
parent-child dyads agreed to be contacted for future studies.
Among those, 66 agreed to take part in the present study Trained research assistants supervised all assessment ses-
(t2). The first measurement point of the present study (t1, sions. At both measurement points, the strength of the
i.e., first measurement point of the original project) took implicit need for power in children was assessed at first.
place in late 2016 to early 2017; the second measurement Next, children provided data on psychological constructs
point (t2 of the present study) took place approximately 3 not relevant to the present study (e.g., indices of subjective
years and 8 months later in fall 2020. The rather large drop- well-being). Only at t2, children provided data on how they
out was mostly due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic: a perceive their parents’ parenting style.
lot of parents expressed their concern to come to the lab as At both measurement points, the accompanying parent
they wanted to keep the number of social contacts as low as provided data on parenting style and other constructs not
possible. Other families were not available due to changes relevant to the study at hand (e.g., critical life events). The
in everyday life (e.g., moving to another region) that did not parents took the questionnaire simultaneously but spatially
allow them to accept the invitation. separated from their children. Assessment of data took
The conduction of the study was approved by the eth- approximately one hour for the children and 30 min for their
ics committee of Trier University. Before each of the data parent at both measurement points.
assessments, parents signed an informed consent form.
Furthermore, children gave their verbal consent after being Implicit power motive
informed about the procedure. Participants voluntarily took
part in the study and were guaranteed that any information The strength of children’s nPower was assessed by a Picture
given would be treated confidentially. At the end of t2, par- Story Exercise (PSE; Schultheiss & Pang, 2007; Smith et
ents were asked to indicate their willingness to participate al., 1992). However, an adapted version for children was
in future data assessments. Participants received monetary implemented, using picture cues depicting situations closer
compensation (approximately 11 $ for each measurement to the children’s everyday life (e.g., two children playing
point) as well as a small gift. with an empty cardboard box; three children with a soccer
ball; for details see Spengler et al., 2020a). This picture set
Sample has been previously used in studies as a valid and reliable
measure to assess the implicit power and affiliation motive
In total, 66 German children (25 females) and their respec- in children. Spengler et al. (2020a), for example, found both
tive parent provided sufficient data at both measurement a satisfactory stimulus pull for the aforementioned implicit
points and thus were included in the study sample. At both motives as well as a predictive validity comparable to adult
measurement points, children were mostly accompanied by PSE measures (i.e., Power Stress). At t1 and t2, respectively,
their mothers (nt1 = 60; nt2 = 57). children were asked to verbally produce stories instead of
At the first measurement point, children were between writing them down. This procedure was chosen to rule out
6 and 7 years of age (M = 6.74; SD = 0.42). At the second effects of children’s penmanship and to keep procedures
measurement children were aged between 9 and 11 years consistent across measurement points.
(M = 9.95; SD = 0.48). At both measurement points, girls The recommended standard instruction for PSE (Smith
were significantly older than boys. On average, at t1 girls et al., 1992) was implemented in a slightly adapted form:
were 0.23 years [F (1, 64) = 5.174, p = .026] and at t2 0.27 Children were told that they would see six pictures. They
years [F (1, 64) = 5.123, p = .027] older than boys. At the were asked to imagine a story for each of the pictures and

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
268 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

were reminded that there were no right or wrong stories. At least to our knowledge, there are no conventions regarding
the second measurement point, they were also told that they minimum protocol length for their age group, we did not
might remember a story they had told before and that they exclude any children that did not produce a certain amount
could either retell the same story or produce a different one. of words (e.g., an average of 30 words per story).1 The total
In contrast to the standard assessment procedure of implicit number of power motive imageries across all six stories
motives among adults, children were shown the respective ranged from 0 to 28 (M = 6.06; SD = 5.24) at t1 and from
picture card for the duration of their story telling. This prac- 0 to 18 (M = 3.62; SD = 3.02) at t2. The number of motive
tice was chosen to support fluency of children’s story telling imageries was significantly correlated with word count at
due to children’s young age. Only if children hesitated or both measurement points (t1: r = .501, p = .002; t2: r = .395,
stopped during their story telling, they were asked supple- p < .001). Therefore, to control for confounding effects of
mentary questions similar to the ones used in standard PSE story length on motive scores, we used regression analysis
instructions (e.g., “what has led up to this situation?”, “what to calculate residualized motive scores.
are the people thinking about?”, “how do they feel?”). Most
(nt1: 66, nt2: 49) children received at least one supplemen- Parenting style reported by children
tary question to support proper story-telling. Number of
supplementary questions was not correlated with children’s Children reported on perceived parenting styles by respond-
nPower scores at t1 (r = − .10, p = .420) or t2 (r = .020, ing to a selection of items taken from the short version of the
p = 876), respectively. Children had 3 min to tell their story Zurich Brief Questionnaire for the Assessment of Parental
for each of the picture cards. Since story-production was Behavior (ZKE; Reitzle et al., 2001). The ZKE consists of
verbal, this timeframe seemed appropriate and has proven 27 items which are assigned to three scales, that is warmth/
to be sufficient in previous research with children and to support (e.g., “teaches me things I want to learn”), rules
approximate story length produced by adults (see, e.g., (e.g., “always wants to be asked before I go out”), and psy-
Spengler et al., 2020a, b). If children finished their story chological control (e.g., “thinks I am ungrateful when I do
before the time was up, the next picture card was shown. If not obey her/him”). For the study at hand, only the scales
children had not finished their story after 3 min, they were warmth/support and psychological control are relevant.
gently instructed (“And how does the story end?”) to wrap The subscale “rules” was excluded as it does not fit into
up their story. Pictures were presented in the same order for either category of positive (i.e., responsive) or negative (i.e.,
all children at both measurement points to keep possible authoritarian) parenting. Due to time constraints, we did not
interferences between picture cues constant (see e.g., Veroff administer all items of the ZKE to measure warmth/support
et al., 1960). For instance, expressing a given motive in one and psychological control but selected a subset of items that
story can temporarily reduce the likelihood of its expression are most characteristic for a given scale (items with highest
in a subsequent story (Atkinson, 1981; see also Schultheiss discriminatory power and factor loadings on the respective
& Schultheiss, 2014). scale; Reitzle et al., 2001). Thus, seven items were selected
The children’s PSE stories were coded by two student for warmth/support (Cronbach’s α = 0.819) and three items
assistants at t1 and two different student assistants at t2 using for psychological control (Cronbach’s α = 0.508). The mean
Winter’s (1994) manual. Both coding dyads were blind to the of respective items was used as an index for warmth/support
study’s aims and well-trained in coding adult and children and psychological control, respectively. Items were rated on
PSE stories and reached at least 85% agreement with train- a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 4 (abso-
ing material coded by experts (Winter, 1994). Additionally, lutely true). When working on the questionnaire, children
all six stories of ten participants were double-coded at each were asked to think of the parent accompanying them at t2.
measurement point to calculate inter-rater reliability. Two- To ensure children understood the questions properly, a stu-
way random, absolute-agreement, single measure intraclass dent assistant read all questions aloud and then asked the
correlation coefficients (ICCs, see Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) child to mark their answer with a cross on the questionnaire
for nPower were calculated. At both measurement points, by their own. Children did not report difficulties understand-
good ICC scores (t1: 0.81; t2: 0.82) were obtained (Koo & ing any of the items.
Li, 2016). Thus, the remaining stories were coded individu-
ally. Coding disagreements were discussed and resolved in Parenting style reported by parents
regular team meetings.
The story length aggregated for all six stories ranged from At both measurement points, parents indicated their par-
85 to 1686 words (M = 606.13; SD = 404.12) at t1 and from enting style using the German extended version (GE-APQ,
197 to 1800 words (M = 606.55; SD = 287.12) at t2. Since Reichle & Franiek, 2009) of the Alabama Parenting Ques-
research on implicit motives in childhood is limited and, at tionnaire (APQ, Frick, 1991). The GE-APQ consists of

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 269

40 items measuring the following parenting dimensions: Results

authoritarian parenting (six items; e.g., “when your child
wants you to make an exception, you insist on your rules First, we will outline results of preliminary analyses. Next,
to make it clear who is in charge in your family.”), posi- general descriptive statistics and correlations of the relevant
tive parenting (six items; e.g., “you praise your child for variables as well as correlations with possible covariates
behaving well.”), responsible parenting (e.g., “you discuss will be presented. In the following section, main inferen-
activities with your child that he/she could do in his/her tial analyses will be presented examining the hypothesized
free time.”), inconsistent parenting (e.g., “how strict the moderating effects of (a) perceived psychological control
punishment for your child will be depends on your current (parenting style reported by children) on the relationship
mood.”), involvement (e.g. “you help your child with home- of authoritarian parenting (parent report, t1) and children’s
work.”), corporal punishment (e.g., “you give your child nPower (t2) and (b) perceived warm/supportive parenting
a smack when he/she did something wrong.”), and poor (children report) on the relationship of positive parenting
monitoring/supervision (e.g., “your child is out and you do (parent report, t1) and children’s nPower (t2).
not know exactly where he/she is.”). Parents indicated on
a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (always) how often parenting Preliminary analyses
techniques described by each item occur in their family, that
is, how often they or their partner use these techniques. For To test the possibility of a systematic dropout, we ran ANO-
the present study, only the scales authoritarian parenting and VAS to compare participants at t1 who also took part in
positive parenting are relevant and yielded good reliabili- t2 and those who did not. Analyses indicate no significant
ties (t1: Cronbach’s α = 0.793 and α = 0.721, t2: Cronbach’s mean differences in positive [F(1, 118) = 1.577, p = .212,
α = 0.806 and α = 0.743, respectively). η2 = 0.013] or authoritarian [F(1, 118) = 2.613, p = .109,
As outlined above, children’s perception of parents’ par- η2 = 0.022] parenting style or nPower [F(1, 118) = 0.202,
enting was assessed via a subset of items of the ZKE due to p = 654, η2 = 0.002], respectively. However, the relation of
time constraints. Thus, different measurements were used to boys to girls was slightly lower in the drop-out sample [F(1,
assess parenting among parents and children, respectively. 118) = 5.608, p = .020, η2 = 0.045; boys : girls drop outs = 32
However, authoritarian and psychologically controlling : 22; boys: girls at t2 = 41 : 25].
parenting are both characterized by high parental control, To investigate associations between hypotheses-relevant
low responsivity and strict rule enforcement. Hence, a sig- constructs and to identify possible covariates of our main
nificant conceptual overlap between both parenting dimen- analyses, we ran two-tailed t-tests for dependent samples
sions can be concluded (see for example Reichle & Franiek, and found a significant mean difference of 0.128 [T(65)
2009; Reitzle et al., 2001). Likewise, positive parenting = -2.094, p = .040, d = 0.498] between authoritarian par-
(GE-APQ, Reichle & Franiek, 2009) and warmth/support enting at t1 (M = 2.255, SD = 0.612) and t2 (M = 2.127,
(ZKE, Reitzle et al., 2001) are both characterized by child- SD = 0.681). Likewise, we found a significant mean differ-
centered and responsive features. ence of 0.084 [T(65) = 2.047, p = .045, d = 0.332] between
positive parenting at t1 (M = 3.644, SD = 0.393) and t2
Transparency and openness (M = 3.561, SD = 0.403).
To investigate whether combining reports of moth-
We report on how we determined our sample size, all data er’s and father’s parenting style for our main modera-
exclusions, and all measures in the present study, and we tion analyses was legitimate, we ran respective one way
follow JARS (Kazak, 2018). All data, analysis code and ANOVAs. We did not find significant differences between
research materials are publicly available at the Open Sci- fathers (M = 2.167, SD = 0.691) and mothers (M = 2.264,
ence Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/ SD = 0.609) concerning the level of authoritarian parent-
muxtq/?view_only=8478b5cf50384e51a45da53ec0ac780e. ing at t1 [F (1,64) = 0.138, p = .712, η2 = 0.002]. Likewise,
Due to copyright infringement, children’s PSE pictures can- we did not find differences between fathers (M = 2.037,
not be made publicly available but can be obtained upon SD = 0.551) and mothers (M = 2.142, SD = 0.703) at t2
reasonable request from the first author. All analyses were [F(1,64) = 0.181, p = .672, η2 = 0.003] nor differences in
executed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0.1.0. The perceived psychological control reported by the children
PROCESS macro version 4.0 (Hayes, 2018) was used to test for fathers (M = 1.444, SD = 0.289) and mothers [M = 1.468,
the moderation hypothesis. The study’s design and its analy- SD = 0.440;F(1,64) = 0.024, p = .878, η2 = 0.000]. Like-
ses were not pre-registered. wise, there were neither significant differences between
fathers (M = 3.556, SD = 0.486) and mothers (M = 3.561,
SD = 0.393) concerning the level of positive parenting at

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
270 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

t2 [F(1, 64) = 0.002, p = .968, η2 = 0.000] nor differences regarding perceived warmth/support [F(1,64) = 0.742,
in perceived warmth/support reported by the children for p = .392, η2 = 0.011).
fathers (M = 3.571, SD = 0.371) and mothers [M = 3.694,
SD = 0.401, F(1, 64) = 0.743, p = .392, η2 = 0.011]. There Correlations
were, however, significant mean differences between
mothers (M = 3.684, SD = 0.362) and fathers (M = 3.250, In Table 1, descriptive statistics as well as correlations
SD = 0.514) at t1 [F(1, 64) = 7.264, p = .009, η2 = 0.102] among variables and with sociodemographic variables are
regarding positive parenting. However, given that only very shown. Surprisingly, the correlation between indices of
few fathers accompanied their child at t1, parents’ relation nPower at t1 and t2 are close to zero. Furthermore, analyses
to the child was not included as a covariate in either of the do not indicate a significant association between parents’
main analyses. and children’s reports of (perceived) parenting at both mea-
To investigate whether children’s gender plays a role in surement times. However, parental reports of both authori-
the parenting style reported by parents or children and would tarian and positive parenting at t1 were highly correlated
therefore classify as a covariate in the moderation analyses, with corresponding parenting scores at t2 (see preliminary
we ran respective one way ANOVAs. At t1, we did not find a analyses for details).
significant difference between boys (M = 2.283, SD = 0.618)
and girls (M = 2.212, SD = 0.610) regarding parent report Main analyses
of authoritarian parenting [F(1, 64) = 0.214, p = .645,
η2 = 0.003]. Likewise, there was no significant differences We hypothesized a negative association of authoritarian par-
between boys (M = 2.221, SD = 0.645) and girls (M = 1.973, enting (t1, parent report) and children’s nPower (t2). This
SD = 0.716) regarding parent report of authoritarian parent- association is furthermore hypothesized to be moderated by
ing at t2 [F(1, 64) = 2.089, p = .153, η2 = 0.032]. However, children’s perception of parental psychological control.
there was a significant effect of children’s gender on per- For both moderation analyses, the template for simple
ceived psychological control [F(1,64) = 13.686, p < .001, moderation analyses (model 1) was used with parenting
η2 = 0.176]: boys (M = 1.602, SD = 0.456) reported signifi- (parent report) at t1 as the predictor, children’s nPower at t2
cantly more psychological control than girls (M = 1.240, as the dependent variable and children’s perceived parent-
SD = 0.226). Hence, children’s gender was included as a ing at t2 as the moderator. All variables were transformed
covariate in the first moderation analysis. Regarding par- into standardized Z-scores. The number of bootstrap sam-
ents’ reports of positive parenting, we did not find significant ples was set to 10,000. Results are presented in Table 2.
differences between boys (M = 3.628, SD = 0.410) and girls The first moderation model explains a significant amount
(M = 3.671, SD = 0.371) at t1 [F(1,64) = 0.180, p = .673, of variance in children’s nPower (t2). The main effect of
η2 = 0.003] or t2 [F(1,64) = 0.040 p = .843, η2 = 0.001; boys: authoritarian parenting at t1 reported by the parents on chil-
M = 3.553, SD = 0.412; girls: M = 3.573, SD = 0.394]. More- dren’s nPower at t2 was significant (B= -0.278, p = .018).
over, we did not find significant differences between boys There is no significant association of children’s reports of
(M = 3.645, SD = 0.463) and girls (M = 3.731, SD = 0.252) psychological control at t2 and their nPower at t2 (B = 0.189,

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD)
1 nPower (t1) --- 0 (4.61)
2 nPower (t2) 0.023 --- 0 (2.78)
3 Psychological Control (t2) − 0.096 0.150 --- 1.46 (0.42)
4 Authoritarian Parenting − 0.030 − 0.267* 0.090 --- 2.26 (0.61)
(t1)
5 Authoritarian Parenting 0.071 − 0.281* 0.142 0.709*** --- 2.13 (0.68)
(t2)
6 Warmth/Support (t2) − 0.184 − 0.042 − 0.383* 0.205 − 0.009 ---
7 Positive Parenting (t1) 0.116 − 0.046 0.057 0.269* 0.091 0.205 --- .
8 Positive Parenting (t2) 0.217 − 0.025 − 0.068 0.312* 0.202 0.117 0.653* ---
9 Age (t2) 0.212 − 0.165 − 0.148 0.018 − 0.013 0.061 − 0.053 − 0.065 --- 9.95 (0.48)
10 Gendera 0.03 − 0.05 − 0.420*** − 0.058 − 0.178 0.107 0.053 0.025 0.272* --- ---
Note. N = 66. Variables 4, 5, 7 and 8 are parents’ reports; all other variables are children’s reports
a
gender coding: 1 = boy. 2 = girl
*p < .05. ***p < .001

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 271

Table 2 Effects of parenting (parents’ and children’s report) on children’s n Power

outcome B (S.E.) t-value (p) F-value (p) R2 BF10
nPower (t2) 4.901 (.004) 0.192 8.948
df = 3, 62
Authoritarian Parenting (t1) -0.278 (.115) -2.423 (.018) 1.968
Psychological Control (t2) 0.189 (.115) 1.644 (.105) 0.47
Auth. Parenting * Psych. Control -0.350 (.134) -2.622 (.011) 3.303
0.436 0.021 0.067
-0.728
df = 3, 62
Positive Parenting (t1) 0.014 (.138) 0.103 (.918) 0.267
Warmth/Support (t2) -0.037 (.128) -0.289 (.774) 0.264
Positive Parenting * Warmth/Support 0.144 (.137) 1.052 (.297) 0.43
Note. N = 66

Fig. 1 Interaction of authoritar-

ian parenting (parent report) and
perceived psychological control
(children’s report) on children’s
n Power

p = .105). However, the interaction term of authoritarian 0.428]). The moderation effect is visualized in Fig. 1, that is,
parenting (t1) and perceived psychological control (t2) only at high and medium levels of perceived psychological
reached statistical significance [Fchange (1, 62) = 6.878, control, there is a significant negative association of authori-
R2change = 0.090, p = .011]. tarian parenting (parent report, t1) and children’s nPower
Conditional effects at three values of the moderator, that at t2.
is, at the mean, at one below and at one standard deviation For our second model, we hypothesized a positive associ-
above the mean, were calculated. A significant association ation of positive parenting (parent report, t1) and children’s
of authoritarian parenting (parent report, t1) and children’s nPower at t2. This association is furthermore hypothesized
nPower at t2 could be identified at high levels of the mod- to be moderated by children’s perception of parental warmth/
erator (B= -0.628, SE = 0.175, t= -3.600, p = .001, 95% CI support. The second moderation model does not explain a
[-0.977, -0.279) and at medium levels of the moderator (B= significant amount of variance in children’s nPower (t2).
-0.278, SE = 0.115, t= -2.423, p = .018, 95% CI [-0.507, Neither the main effect of positive parenting at t1 reported
-0.049). In contrast, at low levels of perceived psychological by the parents nor the main effect of perceived warmth/
control no statistically significant effects could be identified support reported by the children at t2 reached statistical
(B = 0.073, SE = 0.178, t = 0.409, p = .684, 95% CI [-0.282, significance. Furthermore, the interaction term of positive

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
272 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

parenting (t1) and warmth/support (t2) did not reach statisti- positive parenting style as an influence on the development
cal significance (Fchange = 1.165, R2change = 0.019, p = .285). of nPower that is characterized by need-responsiveness and
To control for potentially confounding effects and to fur- child-orientation.
ther scrutinize our findings, we reran our moderation analy-
ses including parents’ parenting reports at t2, children’s t1 Parents’ vs. children’s report of parenting
nPower scores and children’s gender (only in the model
including psychological control). There were no significant Additionally, we broadened the scope of the findings by
differences in the patterns of results. Thus, we report results including children’s perception of parental control as well
without covariates to adhere to the principle of parsimony. as the dimension of positive, that is, responsive, parenting.
In line with findings regarding parents’ reports on and chil-
dren’s perception of parenting, we did not find a significant
Discussion correlation of both measures in the domain of authoritar-
ian/controlling parenting or the domain of positive parent-
In the present study, we investigated longitudinal effects ing (e.g., Dimler et al., 2017; Taber, 2010). Recent research
of parenting on the development of nPower in children. states that effects of parenting on adolescent (problem)
Specifically, we were interested in the role of authoritarian behavior were stronger if adolescents rated their parents’
parenting, which seems to be the most tangent to nPower. behavior as more negative than parents themselves did
Moreover, we investigated the role of positive parenting (Dimler et al., 2017). Following this notion, even though
on development of nPower. Furthermore, we assumed that this was not the central point of our moderation hypothe-
children’s reports on the respective perceived parenting ses, we found the highest nPower scores at t2 in children
style (i.e., psychological control and warmth/support) mod- with high perceived psychological control and low paren-
erates the link between parenting style (parental report) and tal reports of authoritarian parenting. Although nPower can
nPower approximately 3.5 years. evidently not be equated with deviant or problematic behav-
Results partially support our hypotheses. Our first hypoth- ior per se, effects of negative parenting, often including con-
esis, that is, a negative association of authoritarian parent- trolling or authoritarian behavior, seem to be particularly
ing at the first measurement point with children’s nPower pronounced when parents’ reports and children’s perception
approximately 3.5 years later, is supported by our data. In do not match, that is, when parents perceive their parent-
detail, higher levels of parents’ authoritarian parenting were ing to be less negative than their children do (Dimler et al.,
associated with lower levels of children’s nPower. More- 2017). It also seems plausible that children high in nPower
over, as hypothesized, children’s perceptions of perceived perceive more psychological control in parenting than chil-
psychological control moderated this association. Only for dren low in nPower, that is, that they are more sensitive to
children that perceived high or medium levels of controlling assertive/authoritarian cues. Findings regarding nPower in
parenting, a significant negative association of authoritar- adults show that individuals high in nPower are character-
ian parenting and nPower was present. In contrast, we did ized by an enhanced sensitivity to social cues of dominance
not find a significant association of authoritarian parenting compared to those low in nPower (Donhauser et al., 2015).
and nPower when children perceived low levels of psycho-
logical control. Regarding positive parenting, results do not Stability and development of implicit motives
support our hypothesis, that is, there is neither a positive
association of positive parenting at the first measurement Compared to McClelland and Pilon’s (1983) study, the pres-
point and children’s nPower approximately 3.5 years later ent study covers a much shorter period of time. Thus, more
nor a significant moderation effect of children’s report of research is needed to closer investigate the distinct mecha-
warm/ supportive parenting on this link. nisms underlying the development of implicit motives, both
Generally, our findings are in line with McClelland and during and beyond childhood and early adolescence. How-
Pilon’s pioneering study (1983). Even though parenting ever, our findings might be a first hint that the effects of par-
style was operationalized in a different way, in both stud- enting could manifest even over a relatively short time span.
ies, child-rearing characterized by lower control was lon- In literature, it is postulated that implicit motives are pri-
gitudinally associated with a higher nPower in children. In marily shaped in preverbal stages of ontogenesis (McClel-
contrast to McClelland and Pilon (1983), we did not solely land et al., 1989). However, there was no significant
focus on parental control concerning sexual and aggressive cross-sectional association of authoritarian or positive par-
behavior, but relied on a broader measure of authoritarian enting style and nPower in children at t1. In contrast, we
parenting, that is, parents’ strictness and control over their found a significant cross-sectional association of authori-
children in a general sense. Furthermore, we examined a tarian parenting and children’s nPower at t2, in addition

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 273

to the longitudinal effects of parenting at t1. Albeit unex- precisely, in the preverbal or early verbal stages, a positive
pected, this finding suggests that (authoritarian) parenting, parenting style might be associated with the development of
at least in our sample, might not have immediate effects on nPower, as children’s needs are dealt with in a responsive
nPower in younger children, but that the effects of parenting way and antecedents of power-motivated behavior could
take some time to unfold their effect on (older) children’s be enforced (McClelland & Pilon, 1983; McClelland et al.,
nPower. This appears to be inconsistent with assumptions 1989). Later on, there might be a shift in children’s power-
on the preverbal development of implicit motives, at least motivated behavior as the child becomes increasingly aware
in the domain of power (McClelland & Pilon, 1983). Addi- of its possible impact on others through bargaining and more
tionally, children’s nPower was not stable over the course distinguished persuasive strategies (e.g., Veroff & Veroff,
of 3.5 years in our sample. This finding contradicts argu- 1971). The role of authoritarian parenting might increase,
ments on the trait-like stability of implicit motives (e.g., as authoritarian (vs. non-authoritarian) parents try to sup-
McClelland et al., 1989, Schultheiss et al., 2008) and again, press and punish power-motivated behavior that increas-
challenges the notion that development of implicit motives ingly challenges their rules. Furthermore, the importance
is limited to the preverbal stages of ontogenesis (McClel- of rules might also shift through childhood, as options for
land & Pilon, 1983). More recent findings point to a less actively organizing their leisure time increase for children,
pronounced stability of implicit motives (e.g., Denzinger & for instance, spending more time with friends or taking
Brandstätter, 2018; Busch & Hofer, 2012). As children tran- on different hobbies (Ryan et al., 1995). Another impor-
sition from early to late childhood, more and more oppor- tant developmental task in the transition from early to late
tunities, that is, situational cues or incentives, for realizing childhood is achieving personal independence (Havighurst,
the implicit power motive arise. Since it is postulated that 1953). Common examples include testing authority figures
implicit motives are elicited by situational cues or incen- (e.g., parents or teachers) as well as identifying and follow-
tives, respectively, these short-term arousals might foster ing interests and goals that might differ from their parents’.
long-term change in implicit motives’ strength (e.g., Schul- Furthermore, children learn to progressively understand and
theiss & Schultheiss, 2014). Types or styles of parenting, self- regulate their emotions, therefore decreasingly rely-
both verbally and non-verbally transmitted, affect children’s ing on parents. Hence, parents are faced with children’s
exposure to incentives and thereby, also (indirectly) affect increasing need for autonomy regarding more and more
children’s future behavior. Thus, parents’ reactions to chil- life domains, which might, in turn, encourage authoritarian
dren’s behavior might play a crucial role in shaping implicit parents to increase psychological control in order to assert
motives even through late childhood and adolescence. their authority. Moreover, during the transition to early ado-
lescence, children increasingly express their own ideas and
Parenting shifts throughout children’s development thoughts, possibly posing a threat to authoritarian parents’
framework of controlling children’s interests and choices
Especially from early to late childhood, there might be a that might differ from theirs (e.g., Wray-Lake et al., 2010).
shift in parenting style, because parents also react to chil- Another difference worth mentioning between the study
dren’s behavior, resulting in a bidirectional dynamic course at hand and McClelland and Pilon’s study (1983) is the
of interaction (e.g., Patterson, 1982). In our sample, both time of data collection. While McClelland and Pilon (1983)
authoritarian and positive parenting significantly decreased obtained parents’ child-rearing practices in the late 1950s,
during the observed time span (albeit the high positive cor- data on parenting in the study at hand was obtained between
relation between the measures has to be noted, see also 2016 und 2020. General norms or mean levels of parent-
Reichle & Franiek, 2009, for similar results). Due to the ing might have changed over the past decades, yet, effects
nature of implicit motive scores, we cannot make mean level of authoritarian and controlling parenting seem to persist,
comparisons between both measurement points, hence, we enhancing the generalizability of findings. In contrast to
cannot rule out the possibility that a change in children’s McClelland and Pilon (1983), we did not rely on retrospec-
power-motivated behavior might have had an effect on the tive measures of parenting. Furthermore, their rather small
shift in parenting style. Interestingly, albeit not statisti- sample size as well as the single-study design should be
cally significant, we found a positive correlation of positive noted.
parenting at t1 and nPower at t2, however, almost a zero
correlation of positive parenting at t2 and nPower. As posi- Limitations and outlook
tive parenting is characterized by a responsive and child-
centered style (e.g., Reichle & Franiek, 2009), one might We hope to add to the understanding of the development of
argue that this parenting style is particularly influential for implicit motives with our study. We believe studying devel-
nPower in the early stages of motive development. More opmental correlates of implicit motives in childhood is an

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
274 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

important research topic given the possible incremental and instructions for the GE-APQ refer to parental styles preva-
predictive nature of implicit motives for various outcomes lent in the family (as opposed to a specific parent’s style),
across the lifespan, for instance, career paths (McClelland future research should include fathers’ parenting reports to
& Franz, 1992) or preferences in social interactions (e.g., examine different effects of fathers’ and mothers’ parenting
Stoeckart et al., 2018). Yet, some limitations of the current on motive development.
study ought to be addressed. Firstly, we only obtained chil- Moreover, recent research highlights the importance of
dren’s perception of parenting style at t2, but not at t1. We considering biological factors when studying the develop-
decided to refrain from assessing children’s reports at t1 due ment of implicit motives (e.g., Köllner et al., 2019; Schul-
to their young age. Findings point to a relatively low valid- theiss & Köllner, 2021). Unfortunately, we did not measure
ity of children’s report of parenting styles in elementary biological markers of nPower (e.g., 2D:4D scans; see also
school aged children (Shelton et al., 1996). Also, Frick et al. Schultheiss & Zimni, 2015). Future research ought to take
(1999) report an increase in predictive validity as a function both biological markers and (socio-) environmental factors,
of children’s age. Still, the longitudinal effect of parenting like parenting style, and especially their interaction into
on nPower needs to be replicated taking both parents’ and account when examining the longitudinal development of
children’s reports at both measurement points into account. nPower.
Moreover, we did not use the same measure for children’s Furthermore, our findings are limited to a Western indi-
and parents’ reports of parenting styles. As we were con- vidualistic sociocultural context. Cross-cultural research
cerned about test length, we decided to use a subset of items points to the generalizability of many findings in the
taken from the ZKE as a reliable, valid and particularly domain of implicit motives and their correlates (see, Hofer
economic instrument among children (Reitzle et al., 2001). & Chasiotis, 2022, for an overview) as well as the domain
Furthermore, the dimensions authoritarian parenting and of parenting style (Lehmann et al., 2021). Therefore, future
psychological control are both characterized by high con- studies ought to take into consideration that the association
trol/pressure and low responsiveness (Reitzle et al., 2001; of certain parental styles and the development of implicit
Reichle & Franiek, 2009). In the same notion, both positive motives might differ as a function of cultural context.
parenting (GE-APQ-dimension, Reichle & Franiek, 2009) Finally, we did not test for effects of response styles (e.g.,
and perceived warmth/support (ZKE-dimension, Reitzle et social desirability) on data assessed by parents and children.
al., 2001) are characterized by high responsiveness and a Findings regarding the GE-APQ and social desirability pos-
child-centered parental approach. Unfortunately, the psy- tulate effects only on responses in the domains of extremely
chological control scale did not yield a high reliability positive (i.e., positive parenting) or extremely negative (i.e.,
in our sample. This might be due to the shortness of the corporal punishment) parenting (Reichle & Franiek, 2009).
three-item scale used in this study. Applying the Spearman- One possibility to work around this issue is the use of obser-
Brown-Formula for test extension and using the empirical vational data regarding parenting style. Research regarding
reliability obtained in our study, we would obtain a hypo- the APQ has demonstrated positive associations of obser-
thetical reliability of α = 0.756 when triplicating the num- vational data and self-report measures regarding parenting
ber of items in the scale. This corresponds to the subscale’s style (Hawes & Dadds, 2006). Yet, there are reports on a
number of items in the longer ZKE version, as well as the decrease in the (ecological) validity of behavioral observa-
reliability obtained by Reitzle and colleagues (2001). tion of parenting style as children grow older (Keller, 1986).
In our study, measures of parenting styles were mostly Taken together, findings suggest that assessing parenting
obtained from mothers who primarily accompanied their style in a sample of school-aged children via self-report is
children. More recent research emphasizes the importance a reliable and economic measure. We assume that effects
of taking both mothers’ and fathers’ parenting style into of social desirability on our significant moderation results
account, as there are often significant differences between are negligible, however, we cannot rule out the possibility
their parenting styles. In general, fathers usually display a that social desirability led to an exaggeration of positive
more authoritarian parenting style than mothers who in turn characteristics.
usually show a more authoritative style (for a recent review, Summing up, our study adds recent evidence to the lit-
see Yaffe, 2023). In our sample, we did not find signifi- erature concerning the development and stability of the
cant differences in parental (authoritarian) control between implicit power motive in childhood by highlighting the role
mothers and fathers, neither in parents’ nor in children’s of parenting. Of course, given the tentative character of our
report. Regarding positive parenting, we only found signifi- findings, future research based on pre-registered hypoth-
cant mean differences in parental reports at t1, that is, moth- eses is needed to replicate these findings and to examine
ers reported higher scores than fathers. However, as stated the development of implicit motives in more detail, starting
earlier, most data were assessed from mothers. Although even earlier in childhood and continuing into adulthood to

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 275

Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control

gain more insight into the stability of implicit motives and affects children and adolescents (pp. 15–52). American Psycho-
identify possible developmental windows. logical Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10422-002
Busch, H., & Hofer, J. (2012). A picture story exercise set in a German
Acknowledgements Part of this research was supported by a grant of and a Cameroonian sample: Ipsative stability, retest reliability,
the German Research Foundation awarded to the last author (DFG, and sample-level stability. European Journal of Psychological
HO 2435/10-1). Assessment, 28(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
a000100
Author contributions Ellen Kerpen: Conceptualization, data curation, Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C.
formal analysis, investigation, project administration, writing (original (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation
draft); Holger Busch: Funding acquisition, writing (review and edit- and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 598–606.
ing); Benedikt Schulte im Busch: Data curation, investigation, proj- https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598
ect administration; Jan Hofer: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, Denzinger, F., & Brandstätter, V. (2018). Stability of and changes
project administration, supervision, writing (review and editing). in implicit motives. A narrative review of empirical studies.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 777–795. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00777
Funding Part of this research was supported by a grant of the German
Dimler, L. M., Natsuaki, M. N., Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., &
Research Foundation awarded to the last author (DFG, HO 2435/10-
Klimes-Dougan, B. (2017). Parenting effects are in the eye of the
1).
beholder: Parent-adolescent differences in perceptions affects
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
46, 1076–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0612-1
Data availability Due to copyright infringement, children’s PSE pic- Donhauser, P. W., Rösch, A. G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2015). The
tures cannot be made publicly available but can be obtained from the implicit need for power predicts recognition speed for dynamic
first author upon reasonable request. The data and all other research changes in facial expressions of emotion. Motivation and Emo-
materials that the analyses are based upon are available at https://osf. tion, 39, 714–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9484-z
io/muxtq/?view_only=8478b5cf50384e51a45da53ec0ac780e. Durbin, D. L., Darling, N., Steinberg, L., & Brown, B. B. (1993).
Parenting style and peer group membership among European-
Declarations American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(1),
87–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0301_5
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-fi- Footnotes 1 Yet 85 words at t1 appeared to be rather moderate. Thus,
nancial interests to disclose. we performed the main analyses with and without the respective
child. There was no indication of any differences in the pattern
of results. Hence, we report results including all 66 participants.
Compliance of ethical standard The Research Ethics Committee of the 2 Details on regression analyses including covariates can be
Trier University approved the study. The study was conducted in ac- accessed here: https://osf.io/muxtq/?view_only=8478b5cf50384
cordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. e51a45da53ec0ac780e
Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama parenting questionnaire. University
Informed consent Parents were asked for permission and prior to of Alabama.
data assessments signed an informed consent form. Verbal informed Frick, P. J., Christian, R. E., & Wootton, J. M. (1999). Age trends in the
consent was obtained from children prior to data assessments. Both association between parenting practices and conduct problems.
parents and children voluntarily participated in the study and were Behavior Modification, 23(1), 106–128.
guaranteed that any information given would be treated confidentially. Guastaferro, K., Osborne, M. C., Lai, B. S., Aubé, S. S., Guastaferro,
W. P., & Whitaker, D. J. (2021). Parent and child reports of par-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons enting behaviors: Agreement among a longitudinal study of drug
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, court participants. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 667593. https://
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.667593
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the Havighurst, R. J. (1953). Human development and education.
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate Longmans.
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2006). Assessing parenting practices
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless through parent-report and direct observation during parent-train-
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not ing. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 554–567. https://
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9029-x
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.).
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. Guilford Press.
org/licenses/by/4.0/. Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual
for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fan-
tasy, action, and society: A method of assessment and study (pp.
205–218). Van Nostrand.
References Hofer, J., & Chasiotis, A. (2022). Implicit motives across cultures.
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(1). https://doi.
Atkinson, J. W. (1981). Studying personality in the context of an org/10.9707/2307-0919.1097
advanced motivational psychology. American Psychologist, Kazak, A. E. (2018). Editorial: Journal article reporting standards.
36(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.117 American Psychologist, 73(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Paren- amp0000263
tal psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
276 Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277

Keller, H. R. (1986). Behavioral observation approaches to personality Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy,
assessment. In H. M. Knoff (Ed.), The assessment of child and relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and
adolescent personality (pp. 353–390). Guilford. psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Devel-
Köllner, M. G., Janson, K. T., & Bleck, K. (2019). The social biopsy- opmental psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 618–655). Wiley. Theory
chology of implicit motive development. In O. C. Schultheiss, & and methods.
P. H. Mehta (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Social Schattke, K., Koestner, R., & Kehr, H. M. (2011). Childhood corre-
Neuroendocrinology. Routledge. lates of adult levels of incongruence between implicit and explicit
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and report- motives. Motivation and Emotion, 35(3), 306–316. https://doi.
ing intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. org/10.1007/s11031-010-9182-9
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi. Schultheiss, O. C., & Köllner, M. G. (2014). Implicit motives, affect,
org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 and the development of competencies: A virtuous-circle model of
Lehmann, M., Hofer, J., Busch, H., & Menon, J. A. (2021). In the eye motive-driven learning. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia
of the beholder: Effects of parent-reported parenting and adoles- (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp.
cent-reported parenting on identity among German and Zambian 73–95). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
adolescents. Identity, 21(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15 Schultheiss, O. C., & Köllner, M. G. (2021). Implicit motives. In O.
283488.2021.1901048 P. John, & R. W. Robin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
Mackenbach, J. D., Ringoot, A. P., Van Der Ende, J., Verhulst, F. C., and research (4th ed., pp. 385–410). Guilford.
Jaddoe, V. W., Hofman, A., Jansen, P. W., & Tiemeier, H. W. Schultheiss, O. C., & Pang, J. S. (2007). Measuring implicit motives.
(2014). Exploring the relation of harsh parental discipline with In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of
child emotional and behavioral problems by using multiple infor- Research Methods in.
mants. The Generation R study. PLoS One, 9(8), e104793. https:// Schultheiss, O. C., & Schultheiss, M. (2014). Implicit motive profile
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104793 analysis: An if-then contingency approach to the picture story
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. Irvington. exercise. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(1),
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Scott. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12082
McClelland, D. C., & Franz, C. E. (1992). Motivational and other Schultheiss, O. C., & Zimni, M. (2015). Associations between
sources of work accomplishments in mid–life: A longitudi- implicit motives and salivary steroids, 2D: 4D digit ratio, men-
nal study. Journal of Personality, 60(4), 679–707. https://doi. tal rotation performance, and verbal fluency. Adaptive Human
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00270.x Behavior and Physiology, 1, 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/
McClelland, D. C., & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives s40750-014-0012-2
in patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of Schultheiss, O. C., Liening, S. H., & Schad, D. (2008). The reliability
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 564–574. https://doi. of a picture story exercise measure of implicit motives: Estimates
org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.564 of internal consistency, retest reliability, and ipsative stability.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1560–1571. https://
(1953). The achievement motive. Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.008
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of par-
self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, enting practices in families of elementary school-age children.
96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690 Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 317–329. https://
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process (Vol. 3). Castalia doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_8
Publishing Company. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
Patterson, G. R. (1998). Continuities - a search for causal mechanisms: assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–
Comment on the special section. Developmental Psychology, 428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
34(6), 1263–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1263 Smith, C. P., Feld, S. C., & Franz, C. (1992). Methodological consid-
Personality psychology (pp. 322–344). Guilford. erations: Steps in research employing content analysis systems.
Raihala, C., & Hansen, G. (2019). Power stress in primary school chil- In C. P. Smith (Ed.). Motivation and Personality: Handbook of
dren. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Thematic Content Analysis (pp. 515–536). Cambridge University
s11031-018-9724-0 Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527937.038
Reichle, B., & Franiek, S. (2009). Erziehungsstil aus Eltern- Spengler, B., Hofer, J., & Busch, H. (2020a). A video game-based
sicht: Deutsche Erweiterte Version Des Alabama parent- investigation of power stress moderators in children. Motiva-
ing questionnaire für Grundschulkinder (DEAPQ-EL-GS) tion and Emotion, 44(3), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/
[Parenting style from parents‘ perspective: German extended s11031-019-09790-w
version of the Alabama parenting questionnaire for elemen- Spengler, B., Hofer, J., Busch, H., Dzionsko, I., & Emslander, V.
tary school children]. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklungspsycholo- (2020b). Implicit motives and children’s salivary cortisol reactiv-
gie Und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41(1), 12–25. https://doi. ity to an adapted version of the Trier social stress test for children
org/10.1026/0049-8637.41.1.12 (TSST-C). Personality and Individual Differences, 162, 110010.
Reitzle, M., Winkler Metzke, C., & Steinhausen, H. C. (2001). Eltern https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110010
Und Kinder: Der Zürcher Kurzfragebogen Zum Erziehungs- Stoeckart, P. F., Strick, M., Bijleveld, E., & Aarts, H. (2018). The
verhalten (ZKE) [Parents and children: The Zurich brief ques- implicit power motive predicts decisions in line with perceived
tionnaire for the assessment of parental behavior]. Diagnostica, instrumentality. Motivation and Emotion, 42(3), 309–320. https://
47(4), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.47.4.196 doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9687-1
Rosen, B. C. (1962). Socialization and achievement motivation in Bra- Taber, S. M. (2010). The veridicality of children’s reports of parent-
zil. American Sociological Review, 27(5), 612–624. https://doi. ing: A review of factors contributing to parent–child discrepan-
org/10.2307/2089619 cies. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 999–1010. https://doi.
Rosen, B. C., & D’Andrade, R. (1959). The psychosocial origins of org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.014
achievement motivation. Sociometry, 22(3), 185–218. https://doi. Veroff, J., & Veroff, J. B. (1971). Theoretical notes on power moti-
org/10.2307/2785664 vation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development,
17(1), 59–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23083610

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Motivation and Emotion (2024) 48:264–277 277

Veroff, J., Atkinson, J. W., Feld, S. C., & Gurin, G. (1960). The use of perspectives. Child Development, 81(2), 636–651. https://doi.
thematic apperception to assess motivation in a nationwide inter- org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01420.x
view study. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Yaffe, Y. (2023). Systematic review of the differences between
74(12), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093760 mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. Free. Psychology, 42(19), 16011–16024. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Winter, D. G. (1994). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running s12144-020-01014-6
text. University of Michigan.
Wray-Lake, L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2010). Develop- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
mental patterns in decision‐making autonomy across middle dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
childhood and adolescence: European American parents’

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]