McClelland’s Theory of Needs: An S-Tier Behavioral Designer’s Guide

When a designer tells me their product is “motivating,” I ask a one-word question that tends to end the conversation cleanly: for whom. Points motivate the achievement-driven. Community motivates the affiliation-driven. Influence motivates the power-driven. A single feature cannot carry all three, and the product that tries usually carries none.

This is not a modern UX insight. David McClelland published it in 1961. He argued, in a claim that has survived every decade since, that adults are not a uniform species of reward-seekers. We are sorted into three motivational tribes — achievement, affiliation, and power — and the tribe we belong to predicts more of our behavior than our job title, our income, or our personality test.

Most designers who have heard of McClelland stop at the names. That is a mistake. The interesting part is how he measured the motives, why his measurement disagrees with every personality quiz a product will ever run, and what happens when you line the three needs up against the Octalysis Framework and discover that they are not three drives at all — they are a routing table for which Core Drive a given user will actually pay attention to.

In the pages below I am going to walk through McClelland’s Theory of Needs the way I walk it through with a client: the history, the real research (not the blog-post version), the places the theory breaks, the brain-level evidence that has emerged since McClelland died in 1998, and a full Octalysis integration that turns the theory from a classroom slide into a production design tool. If you ship motivational products for a living, this is one of the two or three psychological frameworks you cannot afford to misunderstand.

Speed Run Notes

• Harvard psychologist David McClelland’s Theory of Needs says three learned drives govern adult motivation: achievement (nAch), affiliation (nAff), and power (nPow).
• Achievement motivation is the drive to accomplish difficult goals, hit personal bests, and get immediate feedback.
• Affiliation motivation is the drive to be liked, to belong, and to maintain harmony.
• Power motivation comes in two flavors: personalized power is dominating for personal gain, socialized power is organizing others toward a shared outcome.
• McClelland measured these drives with the Thematic Apperception Test, a projective instrument that scores implicit motives from stories test-takers invent about ambiguous pictures.
• Cross-cultural work from ‘The Achieving Society’ (1961) linked national levels of achievement imagery in children’s stories to subsequent economic growth.

Author Credibility: Yu-kai Chou

Yu-kai Chou created the Octalysis Framework after studying gamification since 2003 — years before the term entered mainstream vocabulary. As a Human-Systems Architect & Behavioral Designer, his framework has been applied by LEGO, Microsoft, Porsche, Coca-Cola, Salesforce, and MrBeast, impacting over 1.5 Billion Users.

Chou has taught the Octalysis methodology at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Tesla, Google, BCG, and IDEO.

His work has been cited by Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Wired, US Department of Energy, NIST, NSF, NCBI, US Department of Education, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar — with 3,700+ more academic publications. Explore his books here.

What Is McClelland’s Theory of Needs?

McClelland’s Theory of Needs is a model of human motivation proposed by Harvard psychologist David McClelland that explains behavior through three learned, relatively stable drives — achievement, affiliation, and power — each person carries in different proportions. The model first took shape in McClelland’s 1961 book The Achieving Society and was elaborated across his later work, notably Power: The Inner Experience (1975) and Human Motivation (1985), the latter written late in his Harvard tenure and still the standard reference for the measurement side of the theory.

McClelland built the theory on top of Henry Murray’s earlier catalogue of psychogenic needs, published in Explorations in Personality in 1938 — a list usually given as twenty core needs, or around twenty-seven once Murray’s provisional ones are counted, with the names varying by who is doing the counting. Murray’s list was encyclopedic and hard to use. McClelland’s bet — and the bet turned out to be well-placed — was that three of Murray’s needs carried almost all of the signal you needed for adult workplace behavior: nAchievement, nAffiliation, and nPower. Everything else was noise or could be reduced to those three.

The three needs are not values, preferences, or personality traits in the Big Five sense. They are learned motive dispositions. A motive disposition is a recurrent concern, usually operating outside conscious awareness, that directs a person toward certain kinds of goal-directed behavior. You do not choose your dominant motive the way you choose your lunch. It is shaped by childhood experience, culture, role models, and the pattern of rewards and punishments you accumulated by the time you were twelve.

The three needs, in one sentence each

• Need for Achievement (nAch): a concern with doing well against a standard of excellence — completing a challenging task better than before, better than others, or better than an absolute benchmark.
• Need for Affiliation (nAff): a concern with establishing, maintaining, or restoring friendly relationships with others — belonging, being liked, keeping interpersonal harmony.
• Need for Power (nPow): a concern with having impact on others, being strong, being influential, or being recognized as a source of force.

Every adult has all three. The theory is about which one dominates and with what intensity. I want to be careful here, because this is the spot where secondhand accounts of McClelland — including an earlier version of this page — invent a tidy population split and attribute it to him. I can find no source in his work for a clean one-third/one-third/one-third breakdown of a general adult population, so I am not going to repeat one. What the research does support is the shape rather than the proportions: the motives vary in relative strength between people, and they sort by occupation. Entrepreneurs score measurably higher on achievement motivation than people in non-managerial professions, and only slightly higher than managers, whose work has entrepreneurial features of its own. Senior general managers skew toward the power pattern described further down. Those are directional facts with effect sizes behind them, and they are all the segmentation argument in this post actually needs.

Why this mattered in 1961

Before McClelland, motivation research was dominated by two camps. Freudians talked about drives as largely sexual or aggressive and largely fixed by early childhood. Behaviorists led by Skinner talked about behavior as the output of reinforcement schedules, with no need to theorize about inner states at all. McClelland split the difference: inner states exist and matter, but they are measurable, they are learned, and they are in scope for adult training and design. That was a radical claim in 1961 and it is the core reason the theory still has design traction today.

The Core Findings

McClelland’s research program ran for roughly 50 years and produced a body of findings that most graduate motivation textbooks underrate because the findings are split across too many books. Here are the ones that still cash out in design work today.

Finding 1: High-achievement individuals prefer moderate-difficulty tasks

In a famous ring-toss experiment, McClelland had participants choose how far to stand from a target peg. Low-achievement-motivated participants clustered at either extreme — either so close they could not miss, or so far they had an honest excuse for failing. High-achievement-motivated participants clustered at the middle distance where success was uncertain but the task was calibrated to their ability. The ring-toss study, reported in 1958 and elaborated in The Achieving Society, has since been replicated across domains from dart-throwing to business-case selection.

The design implication is concrete. If your user is achievement-motivated, difficulty calibration is the single most important lever you have. Too easy and the task feels patronizing. Too hard and the user shifts into loss-avoidance mode. Atkinson’s formalization of this makes the achievement tendency the product of motive strength, the subjective probability of success, and the difficulty of the task expressed as one minus that probability — which peaks mathematically at a 50 percent chance of success. Treat that as the anchor rather than a tuning range: the inverted-U shape has held up, but tests of where the curve actually peaks have not landed on .5 cleanly, so the honest instruction is to aim near even odds and then measure your own curve.

Finding 2: Achievement imagery in children’s stories predicts national economic growth

This is the ambitious claim at the heart of The Achieving Society. McClelland and his team coded the achievement imagery in children’s readers from 23 countries at two time points — around 1925 and around 1950 — and correlated the imagery density with subsequent economic growth measured by electrical production and national income. The 1925 achievement scores predicted economic growth between 1929 and 1950. The 1950 scores predicted growth between 1952 and 1958.

The effect held controlling for starting wealth and for several cultural variables, and the supporting study usually named alongside it is Bradburn and Berlew’s — published in 1961, not 1971, and worth describing accurately rather than filing as a replication. They content-analyzed English imaginative literature across roughly three centuries and found achievement imagery rising ahead of economic activity, which is corroboration from a different country, a different corpus and a different era. It is not a re-test of the 23-country children’s-readers result.

And the honest account of what happened next is harder on McClelland than this page used to be. The cross-national finding did not merely attract methodological grumbling about children’s readers being a strange proxy. The result failed to replicate when other researchers went back to it. Finison in 1976 and Mazur and Rosa in 1977 both re-ran the analysis with statistical errors corrected, using the 1950 achievement scores to predict growth through 1971, and did not recover McClelland’s result; Frey in 1984 found problems with the historical tests as well. What survives is the move, not the finding: coding a population’s motive imagery at all was a genuinely new idea, and it seeded the cross-cultural management research that followed. The economic-growth claim itself is the weakest load-bearing beam in The Achieving Society, and anybody citing it as settled is citing the 1961 book and not the sixty years since. The theory does not need it — everything useful in this post for a designer sits at the individual and occupational level, where the evidence is much better.

Finding 3: The Leadership Motive Pattern predicts long-run managerial success

This is the most concrete applied finding and in my experience the one practitioners are most likely to have misremembered. McClelland and Richard Boyatzis scored entry Thematic Apperception Test protocols from 237 managers joining the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and then checked those scores against who had actually risen, publishing in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 1982.

The winning profile — the Leadership Motive Pattern — was a moderate-to-high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and high activity inhibition. Activity inhibition is the piece everyone drops: it is the internal brake that bottles up the assertiveness and physiological arousal a power motive mobilizes, so the drive comes out as organizing rather than as dominating. That is the measurable difference between socialized and personalized power, and the pattern is defined without any achievement term at all.

Two details in the paper matter more than the pattern itself, and almost every secondhand summary loses both. First, the LMP predicted success at 8 and 16 years for the nontechnical managers. It is a finding about general management, not about running an engineering organization, and anyone applying it to a technical pipeline is extending it past what was measured. Second, achievement motivation is not a component of it — McClelland’s own position was that nAch does not predict performance in a large bureaucratic firm, which is why he built a separate pattern for management in the first place. The achievement result was the surprise in the sense that it was absent. Achievement-dominant managers did well at the bottom of the organization because they were excellent individual contributors. They hit a ceiling at middle management because they could not delegate: doing something through others means accepting you cannot personally hit the standard of excellence, which is intolerable to a high-nAch person. The best managers were the ones whose implicit motive was to organize others toward a shared goal, who were not distracted by needing to be liked, and whose power drive was socialized rather than personalized.

Finding 4: Achievement motivation is trainable in adults

This finding is under-known and, in my view, the most important one for behavioral designers. In the 1960s McClelland ran a program in Kakinada, India, training small-business owners in achievement-oriented thinking, goal-setting, and self-regulation. Two-year follow-ups showed measurable gains in business activity, new-employee hiring, and willingness to take moderate business risks. The effect sizes were not huge but they were durable and they replicated.

The conceptual implication is enormous. Motives are not traits fixed at age five. They are dispositions that respond to deliberate training, cultural exposure, and repeated environmental cues. For designers, this means a well-constructed product can actively grow the motive it targets. Duolingo does not just serve high-nAch users — it produces additional nAch through its streak and XP system. This is a feature, not a bug, and it is one of the reasons gamified products outperform their non-gamified counterparts over long retention horizons.

Finding 4b: How big is the achievement effect, in numbers

Here is a gap I should have closed the first time I wrote this page: everything above describes what McClelland found, and none of it gave you an effect size. The best place to look is entrepreneurship, because that is the domain McClelland himself said achievement motivation ought to predict, and it has been meta-analyzed. Collins, Hanges and Locke pooled 41 studies in 2004 — 69 separate observations, 9,032 participants — and the picture is consistent and modest.

Achievement motivation correlated with choosing an entrepreneurial career at r = .21, confidence interval .18 to .24. It correlated with performance at r = .46 in known-group designs that compared higher- and lower-performing entrepreneurs, and at r = .18 in individual-difference designs, and none of those confidence intervals touches zero. In variance terms that is 4 to 6 percent of entrepreneurial behavior, which sounds dismissible until you notice the authors’ own answer to that objection: a motive is not a one-shot intervention, it is a disposition that gets thousands of chances to tilt a decision across a career, and small per-event effects compound under repetition. That is also the argument for designing around motives in a product people open daily.

Two results inside that meta-analysis are more useful to a designer than the headline. First, the comparison group decides the size of the effect: entrepreneurs scored far above people in non-managerial professions (r = .35) and only slightly above managers (r = .14). Occupational segmentation by motive works, and it works coarsely — it will separate founders from accountants and will barely separate founders from the people running a division. Second, and this one cost McClelland an argument: the TAT showed no validity advantage. For predicting performance the mean correlations were .16 for the TAT, .20 for questionnaires and .20 for the Miner Sentence Completion Scale; for career choice they were .21, .22 and .23. That contradicts McClelland’s own insistence that only a projective measure can reach an implicit motive, and it contradicts Spangler’s earlier meta-analysis, which had found the TAT superior. The authors’ proposed explanation is worth knowing: later researchers may simply have scored the TAT worse than McClelland’s own trained coders did, which is a reliability problem rather than a theory problem. Either way, if you are choosing an instrument for a product rather than for a paper, the expensive projective option has not earned a premium.

Finding 5: Implicit motives and explicit motives are not the same thing

McClelland’s most technical and most important methodological finding, elaborated in a 1989 Psychological Review paper, is that the motive you measure with a projective test like the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) does not correlate strongly with the motive you measure with a self-report questionnaire. The number is worth stating rather than gesturing at, because it is much starker than “not strongly” suggests: Spangler’s 1992 meta-analysis put the average correlation between TAT and self-report measures of the achievement motive at .09. These are not two imperfect readings of one quantity. They are two different quantities that share a name. They tap different systems. Implicit motives, measured by projective tests, reflect non-conscious affective preferences — what excites you, what you find rewarding without thinking about it. Explicit motives, measured by questionnaires, reflect conscious self-concept — what you think you want and what you are willing to declare publicly.

The two predict different classes of behavior. Implicit motives predict long-term behavioral trends, such as career trajectory over decades, and spontaneous choices under low self-monitoring. Explicit motives predict short-term deliberate choices, such as what you write in a job application. When you use only self-report data, as most HR pipelines and consumer surveys do, you are systematically missing the motive that will drive a user’s long-run engagement. This is a design problem most teams do not realize they have.

What McClelland Got Right

McClelland’s standing in mainstream psychology is better than his critics’ 1980s verdict and worse than his admirers’ summary — the cross-national economic claim failed to replicate, the measurement instrument has not beaten a questionnaire in a head-to-head meta-analysis, and the endocrine work vindicated the distinctions between his three motives while declining to vindicate the mechanisms people later hung on them. What has aged well is the architecture. Three things he got right, and that designers should internalize, stand out.

He treated motivation as learned rather than innate

In 1961 this was nearly heresy. Freudian theory leaned on fixed early-childhood determination. Biological models treated drives as instinct-like. McClelland argued — and the Kakinada India training showed — that adult motivation profiles are sensitive to deliberate intervention. This is the assumption every effective gamification program implicitly runs on. If you cannot train motivation, you cannot design for it. You can only sort users by their pre-existing dispositions and route them to different products. A world where motivation is learnable is a world where design is not cosmetic — it is causal.

He insisted that implicit motives matter more than stated ones

A surprising number of contemporary behavioral design failures trace back to product teams trusting survey data. Users tell you what they want in the abstract. The TAT-style evidence McClelland built his career on shows that what users tell you in a structured survey is a conscious self-concept construct, not a reliable predictor of what their attention and effort will actually go toward. When I audit a product that has lost its way, the single most common root cause is that the product was built for the user’s explicit motive and the users are actually operating on an implicit motive the product does not serve.

He split power into two species

Calling the third need “power” without qualification is what killed the theory in the 1970s popular-press reception. It sounded authoritarian. McClelland rescued the concept by splitting it into personalized power — the “I want to win, you lose” variant — and socialized power — the “I want to organize us toward a shared goal” variant. Socialized power is what runs effective leadership, successful political movements, and well-designed community-driven products. Personalized power is what runs competitive social media and casino games. The two use the same behavioral surface but produce opposite second-order effects. If you cannot name the difference, you cannot design for it.

Where McClelland’s Theory Falls Apart

No framework from 1961 survives six decades of testing without showing seams. The honest version of McClelland’s theory names three big ones up front.

Critique 1: The three-need reduction is a designer’s convenience, not a natural law

Henry Murray’s original 1938 catalogue ran to roughly two dozen needs. McClelland cut it to three. He cut it to three because three is easy to teach, easy to measure, and produces a workable typology for executive selection. None of those reasons are scientific reasons. Later researchers including Steven Reiss and Abraham Maslow have argued for fifteen, five, or eight-drive alternatives, each with its own measurement instrument and its own empirical track record.

The three-need version is a useful approximation at the level of occupational segmentation. It breaks down when you try to use it for individual differential prediction inside a motivated professional cohort. Every software engineering team at Google is high-achievement on a population scale, but the variance within that team — the things that make one engineer thrive and another quit — is not captured by McClelland’s three needs. It lives in finer-grained distinctions like need for order, need for autonomy, or need for understanding, which McClelland lumped together or ignored.

Critique 2: The Thematic Apperception Test has serious reliability problems

The TAT has been criticized since the 1950s for low test-retest reliability, heavy dependence on scorer training, and vulnerability to situational factors like the testing-room atmosphere. The figure the meta-analytic literature actually uses comes from Fineman’s 1977 review of the construct: reliability around .54 for the TAT, against roughly .62 for questionnaire measures of the same motive and .65 for the Miner Sentence Completion Scale, with both internal consistency and test-retest coefficients for the TAT “often less than .60”. Half a century of defenders have argued that this is not a flaw but a feature — implicit motives are supposed to be partly situational — but in practice it means a score taken on a bad day looks different from a score taken on a good day.

The implication for design is that McClelland-style motive profiling is useful at segment-level aggregation and unreliable at single-user targeting. If you are deciding whether to design a product for achievement-dominant or affiliation-dominant users, TAT-derived segment data is gold. If you are trying to individually route a specific user into an achievement flow or an affiliation flow, behavioral log data is almost always a better signal than any motive test you can administer.

Critique 3: The cultural-universality claim is weaker than McClelland argued

The Achieving Society argued that achievement imagery in national culture is a leading indicator of economic growth, implying a universal relationship between motive profile and behavior. Cross-cultural researchers including Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars, and Shalom Schwartz have shown that the effect is heavily moderated by cultural dimensions that did not exist in McClelland’s original theory. In collectivist cultures, high-nAch frequently gets expressed through family and clan achievement rather than individual achievement — and McClelland’s TAT scoring missed it. In high-power-distance cultures, nPow gets expressed through ceremonial rather than instrumental channels, which the original coding scheme did not distinguish.

The net finding is that McClelland’s three needs are real across cultures but their surface expression, and therefore their measurement, is culturally contingent. A product that assumes the American-accented version of nAch will mis-segment users in Tokyo, Nairobi, and Sao Paulo. Most global SaaS products discover this the hard way, usually around the time they try to roll out a leaderboard feature internationally.

The Brain on Achievement, Affiliation, and Power

McClelland died in 1998, before the big wave of neuroimaging and salivary-hormone work that went looking for his three needs in the body. The short version of that work is narrower than the usual summary and more useful: his motive distinctions hold up, in the sense that affiliation and power arousal move different hormones in the lab and can be dissociated experimentally. The mechanisms people have hung on those findings are shakier than the findings, and I have rewritten this section to keep the two apart.

Achievement and the dopaminergic reward system

Achievement-motivated behavior is generally located in the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, especially the projection from the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens, and the broader reward-prediction literature is where that reasoning comes from: dopamine tracks the gap between what was expected and what happened, so a task whose outcome is genuinely uncertain but influenceable generates more signal than one whose outcome is already known. That is a good account of why the moderate-difficulty preference exists, and I want to label it for what it is — a mechanism inferred from reward-prediction work, not a published imaging study that scored people on achievement motivation and then watched their striatum at a specified difficulty level. An earlier version of this page implied the latter. The useful half survives the correction: the reward is the uncertain but controllable pursuit of the outcome, not the outcome.

The design implication is that achievement features are fundamentally dopaminergic. Progress bars, XP systems, streak counters, and skill trees all work by supplying a steady flow of calibrated predictions whose confirmation or disconfirmation drives dopamine release. When designers say a feature is “addictive,” the underlying biology is almost always this pathway.

Affiliation and the oxytocin system

The hormone that has actually been measured against affiliation motivation is progesterone, and it is worth being precise about this because the popular version of the finding has drifted to oxytocin. Oliver Schultheiss and colleagues showed that romantic films which arouse the implicit need to affiliate raise salivary progesterone in both men and women, while neutral films and power-arousing films produce no progesterone surge; among women not on oral contraceptives, higher naturally occurring progesterone goes with a stronger affiliation motive, and situations that create close, intimate exchange between two people raise it where mere collaboration on a task does not. Oxytocin is a plausible pathway behind that link rather than the measured response — it regulates progesterone synthesis and release, so the lab treats it as a candidate mechanism, not a result. The behavioral signature is clean either way: affiliation-dominant users are calmed by genuine community interaction, agitated by interpersonal conflict, and strongly affected by the inferred warmth or coldness of the designed environment. Note also the detail in that last study, because designers routinely get it backwards — collaborating on a shared task is not the same stimulus as being close to someone, and a product that ships the former while promising the latter will not land.

Community features, user photos, named attribution, small-group structures, and team-based progress all recruit this circuitry. The commercial signal is underappreciated: products that activate the affiliation system show substantially lower stress-related churn than products that rely on pure achievement mechanics, especially for users going through difficult life transitions.

Power and the testosterone-cortisol axis

Power motivation tracks the gonadal steroids, which is a correction worth making because the shorthand version of this section usually says adrenal. In men, the implicit power motive goes with higher baseline testosterone, predicts testosterone increases on the mere anticipation of dominance and after beating someone in a contest, and predicts flat or falling testosterone after a defeat. In women the same functional pattern runs through estradiol, testosterone’s close steroid cousin: power-motivated women show lasting estradiol increases after winning a contest and decreases after losing. That second half is routinely dropped from design writing about status mechanics, which is awkward given who most products are built for.

Where the stress axis does come in is narrower and more interesting than the usual telling. Only individuals high in implicit power motivation respond to a social defeat with rising cortisol; people with a weak power motive barely move. So the same losing screen is a physiological event for one segment of your users and a shrug for another, which is a sharper design fact than any general claim about competition being stressful.

What I am no longer going to assert, because the evidence does not support it. An earlier version of this section explained the “winner effect” through the testosterone-to-cortisol ratio and claimed that socialized-power individuals show a durably different cortisol profile that amounts to the biology of servant leadership. The ratio idea is the dual-hormone hypothesis, and it has been meta-analyzed: Dekkers and colleagues pooled 30 papers, 33 studies, 49 effect sizes and 8,538 participants in 2019 and found the testosterone-by-cortisol interaction on status-relevant behavior statistically significant but very small, r = −.061, alongside signs of publication bias, analytic flexibility and underpowered individual studies — they called for a large pre-registered test. A separate 2019 analysis by Grebe and colleagues p-curved the same literature and put the published studies at roughly 16 percent power. Marginal support is not a mechanism you get to build an argument on. As for the socialized-versus-personalized cortisol difference, I could not find a study that measured it at all; it read as plausible, which is exactly why it survived five months on this page. Servant leadership is a real and useful distinction at the behavioral level, where McClelland measured it. It does not need a neuroendocrine story, and it does not have one yet.

McClelland’s Theory vs Other Theories

Motivation theories are easier to use when you can line them up against one another and see where they agree, where they disagree, and where they have complementary strengths. Here is how McClelland compares to the four other frameworks designers reach for most often.

McClelland vs Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s Hierarchy is a stage model: physiological, safety, love, esteem, self-actualization, climbed in sequence. McClelland is a profile model: three needs every adult carries in different proportions, acquired through learning rather than climbed through survival. Maslow is strongest when a product is missing basic reliability — fix the hygiene first, then climb. McClelland is strongest when a product is basically working but the motivation is falling flat on segments that should be engaged. You use Maslow to diagnose a broken product; you use McClelland to tune a working one.

McClelland vs Self-Determination Theory

Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory names three universal needs — autonomy, competence, relatedness — and argues all three apply to everyone. McClelland names three needs — achievement, affiliation, power — and argues they vary in strength by person. The overlap is real but partial. Competence overlaps with achievement. Relatedness overlaps with affiliation. Autonomy partly overlaps with power, mostly its socialized variant. Where the theories differ most sharply is that SDT is a “universal nutrient” model (deprivation is harmful) and McClelland is a “personality profile” model (the dominant motive is what you grow, the others matter less). In my own practice, I use SDT for the experience-level design check and McClelland for the user-targeting check.

McClelland vs Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory splits workplace drivers into hygiene factors (absence causes dissatisfaction) and motivators (presence causes satisfaction). The two theories operate at different levels. Herzberg is about environmental features. McClelland is about the inner motive the environment is interacting with. A clean office is a hygiene factor for everyone. A challenging stretch assignment is a motivator — but only if the person it is handed to is high-nAch. For a high-nAff person the same stretch assignment reads as an isolation threat. Herzberg tells you what features to include; McClelland tells you who to offer which feature to.

McClelland vs Reiss’s 16 Basic Desires

Steven Reiss’s 16 Basic Desires is the most explicit heir to Murray’s 27-need tradition. Reiss argued that McClelland’s three-need reduction threw out too much signal and proposed a 16-factor self-report instrument — the Reiss Motivation Profile — that captures finer distinctions including curiosity, honor, idealism, order, and saving. Reiss is better for individual-level targeting; McClelland is better for segment-level strategy. For most product teams the practical choice is: start with McClelland’s three needs to get the segment architecture right, then drill into Reiss’s 16 when you are optimizing individual onboarding flows for a mature product.

McClelland’s Theory in the Real World

The following four domains are where I have seen McClelland’s three needs produce the largest, most replicable wins in applied work.

Workplace and leadership selection

The Leadership Motive Pattern remains, in my view, the most useful applied finding from the entire McClelland corpus. Executive coaches and HR teams who administer TAT-style implicit motive assessments report the same pattern McClelland and Boyatzis reported in 1982: the manager candidates who look best on paper (high achievement, strong delivery record) often plateau at mid-level because their drive is personal accomplishment rather than organizational orchestration. The candidates who rise farthest tend to read as competent rather than brilliant at individual tasks, indifferent to being liked, and quietly obsessed with moving the group as a unit.

The practical advice for anyone running a management pipeline is to complement self-report personality assessments (which tap explicit motives) with either validated TAT-style measurement or, more commonly in practice, structured behavioral interviewing that surfaces implicit motive patterns. Ask candidates to describe a project they are proud of. High-nAch candidates describe the standard they beat. High-nAff candidates describe the team they supported. High-socialized-power candidates describe the system they built that outlasted their involvement. These are three different answers to the same question and they predict very different career trajectories.

Education and differentiated instruction

Educational researchers including Heckhausen, Atkinson, and later Dweck have integrated McClelland’s achievement-motive work into classroom design. The most useful applied insight is that feedback should be matched to the student’s motive profile. High-achievement students thrive on calibrated challenge plus immediate performance feedback. High-affiliation students thrive on collaborative structure and warm teacher relationship first, mastery standards second. High-power students thrive on opportunities to explain material to peers, run group discussions, or build things that influence others.

Most classroom gamification — points, badges, leaderboards, streaks — is unconsciously designed for high-achievement students because the designers were high-achievement students themselves. It underperforms on every student whose live motive is something else, and that is not a small remainder. Systems like ClassDojo, which lean heavily on community and relational mechanics, and Khan Academy‘s peer-teaching features, explicitly route affiliation and power drives rather than sitting on achievement alone. That is not a stylistic choice — it is a McClelland choice.

Marketing, UX, and segmentation design

In consumer UX work, McClelland’s three needs map onto three distinct campaign archetypes. I am not going to put a lift number on them, because the number I used to quote here had no study behind it; what I can say is that in segmented tests the matched frame beats the generic one often enough that running the comparison is close to free. Achievement-framed campaigns emphasize personal improvement, benchmarks, and measurable outcomes — Nike Run Club, Peloton’s performance screens, Duolingo’s streak. Affiliation-framed campaigns emphasize belonging, community, and shared experience — Strava’s kudos, Discord’s guild structure, BeReal’s daily social pulse. Power-framed campaigns emphasize influence, reach, and impact — LinkedIn’s post analytics, Substack’s subscriber dashboard, Twitch’s creator tooling.

The commercial mistake I see most often is treating these three archetypes as interchangeable style choices rather than as targeted segmentation decisions. A marketing team will pick “community” because it sounds warmer, without asking whether their user base is actually affiliation-dominant. If the base is actually achievement-dominant (which it usually is in B2B SaaS), the community framing reads as fluff and CTR drops.

Public health and behavior change

Public-health behavior change is where the single-frame problem is easiest to see, and I want to flag that I am reasoning from the theory here rather than from a trial that compared motive-profiled programs against single-channel ones. I have not found that trial, and I am not going to imply it exists. The structural argument stands on its own: a behavior change framed only as a personal achievement challenge — beat your weekly step goal — speaks to the people for whom achievement is the live motive and goes quiet for everyone else. Offer the same change in three parallel frames, achievement (“beat your weekly step goal”), affiliation (“team up with three friends”), and power (“be the one who gets your family healthy”), and you have stopped making every participant translate your framing into their own. That is a cheap change to make and a testable one, which is the right way to hold it until someone runs the comparison.

The Elephant in the Room

The honest uncomfortable thing about McClelland’s theory, and the thing that most applied books skip, is that power is a real motivator and it is hard to talk about in a twenty-first century corporate setting. Achievement sounds admirable, affiliation sounds warm, and power sounds like the villain in a Marvel movie. The result is that most product and HR teams systematically under-design for power-motivated users because naming the motive feels politically costly.

This is a mistake. Power motivation is the one that shows up disproportionately in the senior-leadership layer of organizations, which is exactly the slice of your user base with budget authority. A product that refuses to serve power motives — by underweighting influence features, impact visibility, and structural authorship — will find that its power-dominant users simply churn to a competitor that does. The competitor does not usually label the features as “power features.” It labels them as “leadership tools,” “creator analytics,” “community-building,” or “platform shaping.” The wrapper is polite; the underlying motive is the same.

The second elephant is related. McClelland’s own work found that a disciplined, institution-directed power motive, rather than achievement, is what tracked effective long-run management — the finding he and David Burnham put in front of a business audience in Harvard Business Review in 1976, where they sorted managers into affiliative, achievement-motivated and institutional types and argued the institutional type is the one that works. I would not call the result settled: the strongest version of it rests on one longitudinal sample and, as above, on its nontechnical half. The cultural narrative that great leaders are great because they were great individual achievers is mostly wrong; great leaders are great because they are driven to orchestrate groups and because their drive is channeled into “us winning” rather than “me winning.” Teams that promote for achievement instead of socialized power get a reliable pattern: strong IC performers who plateau at the first level where delegation is the job. McClelland diagnosed this in 1976. Two generations of management books later, we are still getting it wrong, and the reason we are still getting it wrong is that promoting an achievement-dominant star feels defensible in a performance review and promoting a socialized-power candidate with a merely competent delivery record does not.

Designers who internalize this end up building differently. You weight the power drive deliberately instead of accidentally. You design socialized-power features (community leadership, group goal-setting, visible shared outcomes) instead of personalized-power features (dominance leaderboards, public-shaming mechanics, win-lose framings). And you audit your own leadership pipeline for the Leadership Motive Pattern, not for the candidates whose resumes pattern-match what your board likes to read.

How to Apply McClelland’s Theory of Needs with the Octalysis Framework

This is the section designers came for. McClelland told us who the user is at a motive level. The Octalysis Framework tells us what levers produce engagement. Line the two up and the levers stop being generic — they become targeted.

The mapping is cleaner than most designers realize once you look at it carefully. Every McClelland motive routes to specific Core Drives, and the Core Drives in turn route to specific Game Techniques that have measurable effects in applied design.

nAch maps to Core Drive 2 (Development and Accomplishment)

The Need for Achievement is the motive to complete difficult goals against a standard of excellence. Octalysis Core Drive 2 — Development and Accomplishment — is the drive to make progress, build skills, and overcome challenges. The mapping is almost one-to-one. Achievement-dominant users are the natural audience for Core Drive 2 Game Techniques: Progress Bars, Status Points (Game Technique #1), Achievement Symbols (Game Technique #2), Leaderboards, and crucially the Desert Oasis pattern that resets effort with brief periods of easy reward to keep the difficulty calibration live.

The calibration rule matters here. Because achievement-dominant users cluster behaviorally around tasks they have something like an even chance of completing (the ring-toss finding, and Atkinson’s math above), the most powerful CD2 design decision is difficulty-scaling. A progress bar that completes too easily produces no dopamine; a progress bar that never completes produces loss-avoidance anxiety. The sweet spot is a calibrated curve that flexes up as the user improves. This is the structural reason Duolingo’s difficulty-adaptive lessons outperform fixed-difficulty vocabulary apps: the difficulty matches where nAch lives neurologically.

nAff maps to Core Drive 5 (Social Influence and Relatedness)

The Need for Affiliation is the motive to maintain warm relationships, belong, and be liked. Octalysis Core Drive 5 — Social Influence and Relatedness — is the drive to be socially connected, mentored, or accepted. Again the mapping is nearly one-to-one. Affiliation-dominant users respond strongly to Game Techniques including Social Treasure, Mentorship, Friending, Group Quests, and the warmth-cue cluster of avatar customization and named attribution that signals the user matters to the community.

One subtle point: affiliation-dominant users respond poorly to competitive Core Drive 5 mechanics — head-to-head comparisons, ranking among friends, public activity streams that expose differential performance. The affiliation drive is about harmony, not about winning social status. Confusing the warmth side of Core Drive 5 with its competitive side is a common source of churn in community-centered products. A product that calls itself community-first but delivers Core Drive 5 competition drives its affiliation-dominant users toward competitors that deliver actual warmth.

nPow maps across Core Drives 1, 6, and 8 depending on flavor

This is where the mapping gets more interesting and where most of the value is in real design work. Personalized power and socialized power do not live in the same Octalysis drives.

Socialized power maps primarily to Core Drive 1 (Epic Meaning and Calling). A user driven by socialized power wants to organize others toward a shared outcome. Core Drive 1 — the drive to feel part of something greater than oneself — is the lever that activates that motive. Game Techniques like Narrative, Higher Meaning, and Beginner’s Luck that frame the user as called to a mission are where socialized-power users engage most deeply. The visible real-world example is any successful cause-based platform — Kickstarter as civic infrastructure, Khan Academy’s “free world-class education for anyone,” Wikipedia’s sum-of-human-knowledge frame.

Personalized power maps primarily to Core Drive 6 (Scarcity and Impatience) and Core Drive 8 (Loss and Avoidance). A user driven by personalized power wants to win, dominate, or prevent others from having what they have. Core Drive 6 — the drive to have something others cannot — and Core Drive 8 — the drive to avoid losing what you have — are the levers that activate that motive. Game Techniques built on status-signaling scarcity, exclusive VIP tiers, visible rank differentials, and loss-framed risk mechanics are where personalized-power users engage most deeply.

A cross-cutting claim. Some power-motivated behavior also recruits Core Drive 7 (Unpredictability and Curiosity), especially in the form of variable-reward competitive loops where part of the reward is the thrill of who will win this round. This is one of the reasons competitive player-versus-player games combine Core Drive 6 (CD6): Scarcity & Impatience in the form of limited-time rewards, Core Drive 7 (CD7): Unpredictability & Curiosity in the form of uncertain match outcomes, and Core Drive 8 (CD8): Loss & Avoidance in the form of rank demotion. The engagement intensity is enormous; the ethical burden is also enormous, because unmoderated personalized-power design produces the most toxic user behavior of any engagement pattern in the field.

The design routing table

Taken together, McClelland’s three needs plus the Octalysis Framework give you a concrete routing table for design decisions. If you know (or can infer) a user’s dominant motive, you know which Core Drives to lead with and which Game Techniques to stack around them. Below is the exact table I use with clients.

Cross-checking this table against any engagement pattern you are shipping should be a weekly design exercise. If a feature does not show up somewhere on this table, it is almost certainly drifting — either serving no motive, or serving a motive that does not exist in your user base.

Practical Steps to Apply McClelland’s Theory of Needs

Theory is cheap. What follows is the seven-step workflow I run with clients when McClelland is the right framework for their problem.

Step 1: Decide if McClelland is the right tool for the job

McClelland is the right tool when you have a basically functional product that is underperforming on engagement across some users and you suspect the underperformance is a motive mismatch. It is the wrong tool when hygiene factors are broken (use Herzberg), when basic needs are unmet (use Maslow), or when you need fine-grained individual targeting (use Reiss). Diagnose the level first — do not apply McClelland to a problem that needs a more basic fix.

Step 2: Build a motive profile of your user base

Full TAT profiling is expensive and most product teams do not need it. A pragmatic alternative is a three-question behavioral proxy embedded in onboarding or user interviews: what drew you to this product? (high-nAch users name outcomes and benchmarks; high-nAff users name community and relationships; high-socialized-nPow users name influence and impact); tell me about a recent win you are proud of (the structure of the answer is diagnostic); and what would disappointment look like in six months? (loss-framing reveals the motive under threat). Combine these with behavioral log analysis — which feature clusters does the user actually use? — for a reliable segment-level profile.

Step 3: Map your feature stack against the routing table

Take the design routing table in the previous section and mark which of your current features serve which motive. Most product teams discover an uncomfortable asymmetry — a stack of achievement features, a handful of affiliation features, and almost no explicit power features. This is the artifact of designers designing for themselves. The gap is where most of your growth is.

Step 4: Prioritize features that serve the under-served motive

If a meaningful share of your user base is affiliation-dominant and your feature stack has two affiliation features against nine achievement features, you have a design debt — and note that the share is something you measure in your own product, not something you read off a textbook distribution. Building the third or fourth affiliation feature usually produces more engagement lift than building the fifth achievement feature, because the affiliation users have no close substitute inside your product while the achievement users already have four. That asymmetry, not a population percentage, is the ROI argument for a McClelland-based roadmap.

Step 5: Route new users to the flow that matches their dominant motive

If you captured a motive proxy in onboarding, use it. Route achievement-dominant new users into the streak and XP flow first. Route affiliation-dominant new users into the community and mentorship flow first. Route power-dominant new users into the influence or impact flow first. Do not force all new users through an identical “one best onboarding.” Identical onboarding is a 1990s assumption that segmentation-aware products have long abandoned.

Step 6: Avoid the “all motives, all the time” trap

A common failure mode is to design every feature to appeal to all three needs simultaneously. This produces features that technically activate all three motives but activate none of them strongly enough to matter. The stronger design rule is: one feature, one dominant motive. Stacked features across the product serve the full spectrum of users; each individual feature has a clear motive target.

Step 7: Re-profile users quarterly

Motives shift with life stage, career position, and cultural exposure. A user who was achievement-dominant at 25 and solo-contributor may be socialized-power-dominant at 40 and managing a team. Products that lock users into their onboarding motive and never re-profile miss the shift and watch engagement decay. A lightweight quarterly survey plus behavioral log analysis is usually enough to catch the transitions.

Step 8 (optional): Train the motive you need

Recall that McClelland’s 1960s India work showed adults can be trained to increase nAch. Products whose business model depends on achievement engagement — fitness, language learning, financial planning — can use achievement-training mechanics (goal-setting journals, implementation-intention prompts, progress reflection) to grow the nAch level of their user base over time. This is a long-horizon lever, not a quarterly one, and it is the reason mature gamified products often outperform newer competitors on long-run retention.

Closing Thoughts & FAQ

McClelland’s Theory of Needs is not the full picture of human motivation. No framework from 1961 is. But the core claim — that adult motivation sorts into three learned drives that can be measured, trained, and designed against — has held up across six decades of empirical challenge, and it has become the one framework I reach for first when a product’s engagement problem looks like a motive mismatch.

If you take nothing else from this post, take the mapping: achievement lives in Core Drive 2, affiliation lives in Core Drive 5, socialized power lives in Core Drive 1, and personalized power lives in Core Drives 6 and 8. Internalize that mapping and a lot of the Core-Drive selection problem stops being a judgment call and starts being a routing problem. That is a better place for any design team to be.

The theory is not a replacement for close qualitative user work. Read your logs. Run your interviews. Spend your hours with the people who use your product. What McClelland gives you is a compression: a three-cell grid you can use to ask better questions, build better segments, and catch the design debts your instincts would otherwise gloss over. If the framework does nothing else for your team, it will at least keep you from building the fifth achievement feature when the real gap is the second affiliation feature.

If you want to see the full routing map that lives behind this mapping — all eight Core Drives, the Game Techniques that operationalize each one, and the White Hat / Black Hat split that tells you which lever breaks your users versus which one compounds their motivation — start with the complete Octalysis Framework guide. That is where the three-cell grid in this post becomes a shipping checklist.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is McClelland’s Theory of Needs in simple terms?

McClelland’s Theory of Needs is a 1961 model from Harvard psychologist David McClelland that explains human motivation through three learned drives: the need for achievement (mastering difficult goals), the need for affiliation (belonging and harmony), and the need for power (influencing and impacting others). Each person carries all three, but one usually dominates — and which one dominates predicts the kinds of work, rewards, and environments that will actually move them.

Is McClelland’s Theory of Needs still used today?

Yes, it is still used in executive selection, leadership development, and segmentation design, especially in organizations that want something deeper than a personality test. One caveat on instruments, because the older version of this answer called the Thematic Apperception Test the gold standard and that is contested: the 2004 meta-analysis of achievement motivation and entrepreneurship found the TAT no more predictive than ordinary questionnaires or the Miner Sentence Completion Scale, which is the opposite of what McClelland argued and of what the 1992 meta-analysis reported. The TAT remains the instrument the theory was built on and the only one that measures what McClelland meant by an implicit motive. It is not demonstrably the most accurate one to buy. Lighter self-report versions of the model show up in coaching, entrepreneurship training, and behavioral-design work where you need to match a reward to the person rather than the other way around.

How is the need for power different from greed or ambition?

McClelland split the need for power into personalized power, which is about dominating others for personal benefit, and socialized power, which is about leading and organizing others toward a shared outcome. Greed maps onto personalized power. Servant leadership maps onto socialized power. The two look similar in a one-sentence job interview but produce opposite long-term results, which is why McClelland argued that socialized power is the single best predictor of effective management.

How does McClelland’s Theory compare to Maslow’s Hierarchy?

Maslow arranges five needs on a ladder and assumes people climb from physiological needs up toward self-actualization. McClelland flattens that ladder into three needs that every adult already carries, in different proportions, acquired through culture and life history. Maslow is a sequence; McClelland is a personality profile. In practice, designers use Maslow to map a product’s floor (basic needs met?) and McClelland to tune the product’s ceiling (which drive is this user actually chasing?).

How does McClelland’s Theory relate to Self-Determination Theory?

Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory names three universal needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) and argues they apply to everyone. McClelland named three needs (achievement, affiliation, power) and argued they vary in strength by person. The overlap is real: competence in SDT overlaps with achievement, relatedness overlaps with affiliation, and autonomy partly overlaps with power. The difference is that SDT is a universal nutrient model while McClelland is a personality-profile model. The two theories are complementary, not competing.

What is the Thematic Apperception Test and why did McClelland use it?

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective instrument developed by Henry Murray at Harvard in the 1930s. Test-takers are shown ambiguous images and asked to write a short story about each one. Trained scorers count the frequency of achievement, affiliation, and power imagery in those stories. McClelland used the TAT because he believed implicit motives (what your imagination reaches for) predict real behavior better than explicit self-report (what you say you want in a questionnaire). The evidence splits: the two kinds of measure clearly tap different things, correlating at only about .09, and they predict different classes of behavior — but the claim that the projective measure is the more accurate one has not held up consistently, and a 2004 meta-analysis in the domain McClelland cared most about found no advantage for it.

Can you change which need dominates in you?

Yes, which is one of McClelland’s least discussed but most important findings. He trained Indian entrepreneurs in the 1960s in achievement imagery and behaviors and measured durable increases in business activity afterward. The needs are learned, not inherited. Cultural exposure, role models, training programs, and repeated experiences of success or failure all shift the balance. The practical implication for designers: motivation is not a fixed trait — a well-designed product can literally grow the drive it targets.

What does McClelland’s Theory say about good managers?

The surprising finding of McClelland and Boyatzis’s 1982 AT&T study was that the managers who rose furthest were not those highest in the achievement motive. High achievers want to personally accomplish things, which makes them excellent individual contributors and poor delegators. The pattern that predicted long-run success — measured at 8 and 16 years, and specifically among the nontechnical managers — was a moderate-to-high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and high activity inhibition. Low affiliation matters because managers who need to be liked avoid hard feedback. The power motive matters because it is the drive to organize others toward a goal, which is literally the job description, and the activity inhibition is what keeps that drive aimed at the organization rather than at the manager.

How do I know which need dominates in me or my users?

Three cheap signals usually get you 80 percent of the answer. Achievement-driven people talk about benchmarks, personal bests, and hard-but-doable challenges. Affiliation-driven people talk about the team, the group, and who was there. Power-driven people talk about influence, impact, reach, and structural change. More formally, a validated inventory like the Personality Research Form or Steers and Braunstein’s Manifest Needs Questionnaire gives a reliable profile. For user research, log analysis of which features a user interacts with is often a better signal than a survey.

What is the single biggest design mistake people make with McClelland?

Assuming that all users have the same dominant need — usually achievement, because designers tend to be high-achievers themselves. Points, badges, and leaderboards are achievement rewards. When you apply them to affiliation-driven or power-driven users, the incentive lands flat or actively backfires. A high-affiliation user handed a leaderboard feels isolated and exposed. A high-power user handed a participation badge feels patronized. The fix is to let users choose their own reward currency, or to profile them early and route them into different flows.

References

1. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
2. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington.
3. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
4. McClelland, D. C. (1989). How Do Self-Attributed and Implicit Motives Differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702.
5. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership Motive Pattern and Long-Term Success in Management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737–743.
6. McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press.
7. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
9. Schultheiss, O. C., & Pang, J. S. (2007). Measuring Implicit Motives. In Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, 322–344.
10. Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., & Stanton, S. J. (2004). Effects of Affiliation and Power Motivation on Salivary Progesterone and Testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 46(5), 592–599.
11. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: Wiley.
12. Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and Action. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of Questionnaire and TAT Measures of Need for Achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 140–154.
14. Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A Behaviorally-Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work Settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9(2), 251–266.
15. Winter, D. G. (1991). A Motivational Model of Leadership: Predicting Long-term Management Success from TAT Measures of Power Motivation and Responsibility. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 67–80.
16. Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The Relationship of Achievement Motivation to Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Human Performance, 17(1), 95–117.
17. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power Is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54(2), 100–110. (Reprinted January 2003.)
18. Bradburn, N. M., & Berlew, D. E. (1961). Need for Achievement and English Economic Growth. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 10(1), 8–20.
19. Mazur, A., & Rosa, E. (1977). An Empirical Test of McClelland’s “Achieving Society” Theory. Social Forces, 55(3), 769–774.
20. Finison, L. J. (1976). The Application of McClelland’s National Development Model to Recent Data. The Journal of Social Psychology, 98(1), 55–59.
21. Fineman, S. (1977). The Achievement Motive Construct and Its Measurement: Where Are We Now? British Journal of Psychology, 68(1), 1–22.
22. Dekkers, T. J., van Rentergem, J. A. A., Meijer, B., Popma, A., Wagemaker, E., & Huizenga, H. M. (2019). A Meta-Analytical Evaluation of the Dual-Hormone Hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 250–271. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.004
23. Grebe, N. M., Del Giudice, M., Thompson, M. E., Nickels, N., Ponzi, D., Zilioli, S., Maestripieri, D., & Gangestad, S. W. (2019). Testosterone, Cortisol, and Status-Striving Personality Features: A Review and Empirical Evaluation of the Dual Hormone Hypothesis. Hormones and Behavior, 109, 25–37.
24. Wirth, M. M., Welsh, K. M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2006). Salivary Cortisol Changes in Humans After Winning or Losing a Dominance Contest Depend on Implicit Power Motivation. Hormones and Behavior, 49(3), 346–352.
25. Stanton, S. J., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2009). The Hormonal Correlates of Implicit Power Motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 942–949.

Related Reading

• The Complete Octalysis Framework — all 8 Core Drives
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for Designers
• Self-Determination Theory: Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness
• Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: Hygiene vs Motivators
• Steven Reiss’s 16 Basic Desires
• Prospect Theory: Loss Aversion for Designers

WOULD YOU LIKE YU-KAI CHOU TO WORK WITH YOUR ORGANIZATION?