Students in learning situations differ in their behavior. Some of them try to concentrate on the tasks while others play with their pen and seem to be bored. Consequently, it can be assumed that people differ in their desires, wishes, drives and motives to achieve in learning situations. Psychological research often refers to the “Big Three” (Langan-Fox & Grant, 2006) motives, namely achievement (intention to successfully complete tasks, attain goals or reach a given standard of excellence), affiliation (intention to establish and maintain positive relationships with others) and power (intention to have impact on others or maintain one’s reputation), and there is evidence that these three motivational systems are biologically determined (McClelland, Koestner & Weinberger, 1989). They are regarded as relatively stable personality dimensions evaluating situations and goals. To have an impact on behavior they need some kind of activation. Once a specific motive is activated it energizes and directs behavior.  

Research implies that for each motive there are always two facets, a need-for- and a fear-of- tendency. More precisely, motives not only push people to do something, but they can also prevent them from doing something. As Elliot and Covington (2001) pointed out: “In approach motivation, behavior is instigated or directed by a positive/desirable event or possibility; in avoidance motivation, behavior is instigated or directed by a negative/undesirable event or possibility” (pp.73/74). In achievement motivation for example, there is hope of success and this is linked with the anticipation of pride. On the other hand, fear of failure is the anticipation of shame in case of failure. The conflict of these two rather independent forces is said to determine achievement behavior. Consequently, these motivational differences should explain why some individuals learn with enthusiasm and others only with reluctance as described above (Covington, 2000).

A second aspect of debate in the psychology of motives is whether motives are conscious (=explicitly accessible) or unconscious (=only indirectly accessible or implicit) to peoples’ mind.  Conscious motives can be measured via questionnaires while unconscious motives need a test stimulating imagination. McClelland (1980) recommended the use of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) which comprises ambiguous pictures about which participants have to write stories revealing their unconscious motive patterns.

McClelland et al. (1989) pointed out that explicit and implicit motives predict different kinds of behavior: “…implicit motives have generally been found to predict operant behaviors and self-attributed motives have been found to predict respondent behaviors” (p.695). That is, implicit motives are more suitable for predicting spontaneous behavior which does not need additional incentives. For example, there is evidence for the relationship of the (implicitly assessed) power motive and managerial success (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982), achievement motivation and achievement outcomes (Spangler, 1992) and affiliation and intuitive judgements (Quirin, Düsing & Kuhl, 2013).

Consequently, implicit motives are able to predict accomplishments in different contexts. In Germany, the VET system represents an important context for young people where they have to  acquire a lot of knowledge and skills both in vocational schools and in training companies. But little is known about the predictive validity of implicit motives for training success in VET. As drop-out rates in the German VET system are quite substantial (approx. 20 %), there is a practical need to identify relevant indicators for training success. We know that cognitive factors like IQ and specific knowledge tests are important predictors of the grades earned in VET (Schmidt-Atzert & Deter, 1993). But the relevance of implicit motives is rather unknown. Therefore the purpose of the proposed paper is to analyze the relationship of motives with training success.

•Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Integrative Review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200. •Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 73-92. •Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2006). The thematic apperception test: Toward a standard measure of the big three motives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 277–291. •McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions. The merits of operant and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 10–41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. •McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E (1982). The leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. •McClelland, D., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How Do Self-Attributed and Implicit Motives Differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690-702. •Quirin, M., Düsing, R., & Kuhl, J. (2013). Implicit Affiliation Motive Predicts Correct Intuitive Judgement. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(1), 24-31. •Schmalt, H.-D., Sokolowski, K., & Langens, T. (2000). Das Multi-Motiv-Gitter für Anschluß, Leistung und Macht. Frankfurt a.M.: Swets & Zeitlinger. •Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Deter, B. (1993). Die Vorhersage des Ausbildungserfolgs bei verschiedenen Berufsgruppen durch Leistungstests. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 37(4), 191-196. •Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of Questionnaire and TAT Measures of Need for Achievement: Two Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 140-154. •U.S. Department of Labor (2013). Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Retrieved from: http://www.onetonline.org/ •Westermann, R., Heise, E., Spies, K., & Trautwein, U. (1996). Identifikation und Erfassung von Komponenten der Studienzufriedenheit. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 43, 1-22. •Winter, D. G. (1988). The Power Motive in Women - and Men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 510-519.