Dominant motivational profile: meaning and application

You want to know why a target group chooses something or drops out, but usually several motives play a role at once. Neurofactor uses the working concept dominant motivational profile for this. You will read what we mean by it, how to establish it, how to put it on a target group profile and where its limits lie.

In Neurofactor's approach, a dominant motivational profile is a summary of which motives carry the most weight within a target group in one specific choice, ranked relative to each other.

Examples of such motives are mastery (competence and growth), autonomy, prosocial motivation (contributing to others), security and status. It is a working concept, not an established scientific term and not a validated measurement instrument. The profile describes a group in a choice context, not a person, and always consists of several motives.

Dominant motivational profile is a Neurofactor working concept. It was created to record briefly in target group research which motives appear to be decisive in a choice. There is no originator or publication outside Neurofactor to which the term can be traced; the internal definition and procedure are still being formally documented.

The motives we use do connect with well-known motivation theory. We use that theory as context: it helps to name motives, but it does not prove that this classification is complete or the best one.

• Mastery and autonomy. Richard Ryan and Edward Deci's self-determination theory names competence, autonomy and relatedness as three innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). "Mastery" is our term for the competence and growth motive.
• Prosocial motivation. Among 58 firefighters and 140 fundraisers, Adam Grant found that the desire to help others was more strongly related to persistence and performance when people were also intrinsically motivated, that is, found the work itself interesting (Grant, 2008). Motives therefore work together.
• Security. Tory Higgins distinguishes a promotion focus, aimed at growth and achieving positive outcomes, from a prevention focus, aimed at safety and avoiding negative outcomes (Higgins, 1997). The security motive is close to that prevention focus.
• Status. Anderson, Hildreth and Howland define status as the respect, admiration and voluntary deference others give someone, and distinguish it from power and financial success (Anderson et al., 2015). Their review concludes that the desire for status appears to be a fundamental motive, with differences in strength between people.

"Dominant" here means: carrying the most weight in this choice. It does not mean that other motives are absent, nor that people are always like this.

Not an emotional driver. An emotional driver describes the emotional meaning of what someone wants to achieve, keep or avoid, in the target group's own words. The motivational profile is more compact and more comparative: it ranks a limited set of motives by weight.

Not a value. Values are guiding principles about what a group considers important or desirable. Shalom Schwartz describes values as a system of priorities in which the trade-off between competing values guides behaviour (Schwartz, 2012). We borrow that idea of ranking and trade-off. A motivational profile, however, is about what weighs in one choice, not about broad life principles.

Not a dominant emotion. A dominant emotion is the feeling that appears most decisive around a choice, such as doubt. A motive is what people move towards or away from. Doubt can go together with a strong security motive, but they are different statements.

Not a personality type. A personality type describes a relatively stable characteristic of a person. A motivational profile describes a group in a context. Someone who mainly seeks security with a gym membership may be driven mainly by mastery at work.

In Neurofactor's approach, a profile rests on three principles.

Choice-specific. You start with a precise choice: "staying a member after the first three months" is a different choice from "becoming a member". Without a defined choice, a motivational profile cannot be interpreted.

Several sources. People cannot always report the reasons for their behaviour reliably. Nisbett and Wilson showed that people's explanations of their own choices often rest on plausible theories rather than direct access to the underlying process (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). So combine, for example, open questions and interviews, association tasks (How do you measure associations?), a ranking task and, where available, behavioural data.

Relative weight. If you ask people to score each motive separately, you often get "important" for everything. A task that forces a choice gives more information about ranking. When measuring values, Lee, Soutar and Louviere compared best-worst scaling, in which participants choose the most and least important item in each set, with ordinary ratings and rankings; their results pointed to potentially better outcomes (Lee et al., 2007). That is an argument for considering such a task, not proof that it always works better for motives.

Group level. The profile summarises what recurs most often and most strongly within a target group. Also describe the spread: if a substantial share shows a different ranking, that is a separate finding, possibly a separate target group.

A good phrasing names the choice, two to four motives in ranked order and the evidence. For example (fictional):

In the choice to stay a member after three months, this target group mainly weighs security (training correctly, no injury) and mastery (noticeable progress). Prosocial motivation plays a smaller role; status was hardly mentioned. Source: interviews and ranking task; not yet tested against cancellation behaviour.

Avoid phrasings such as "this target group is status-driven". They sound like a personality trait, hide the other motives and do not say which choice they apply to. Also record when and among whom you established the profile, so that you can update it later.

1. Define the choice. Which decision, by whom, at what moment?
2. Choose a limited set of motives. Start with mastery, autonomy, prosocial motivation, security and status, and add a motive if the research calls for it.
3. Collect several sources. Combine what people say with tasks that force a choice and, where possible, with behaviour.
4. Determine ranking and spread. Note which motives come out on top, how firm that is and where groups differ.
5. Phrase it on the profile. Two to four motives, with choice, source and date.
6. Test the translation. Translate the profile into a message or design choice and test it in your own context.

This example is fictional and contains no research results.

Situation. A gym chain wants to retain new members after the first three months. The marketing team wants campaigns about "becoming your best self".

Choice question. What carries the most weight in the choice to stay a member after three months?

Available information. Cancellation figures per location, short exit surveys and trainers' impressions.

Appropriate approach. Interviews with members who stay and members who cancel, a ranking task with the five motives adapted to exercise, and a link to anonymised visit behaviour.

Possible interpretation. Suppose the research shows that security and mastery rank highest. Then a message about guided, safe progress fits better than a message about appearance or prestige. A systematic review of self-determination theory and exercise found that autonomous forms of motivation are consistently related to exercise, and that intrinsic motivation was more strongly related to long-term adherence (Teixeira et al., 2012). Most studies were non-experimental; this is context, not evidence for this chain.

Next step. Test two variants of the welcome programme and compare cancellation behaviour, with outcome measures set in advance.

• Picking one driver. Calling a target group "status" throws information away. Grant (2008) shows that motives can reinforce each other.
• Detaching the profile from the choice. A profile for "becoming a member" says little about "staying a member".
• Reading a group as a person. A group profile does not predict what one member will do.
• Only asking why. Self-report on reasons is limited (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Combine sources.
• Using theory as validation. That security resembles a prevention focus does not mean Neurofactor has measured that focus.
• Standing still. Motives can shift when the situation or the offer changes. Record source and date.

A dominant motivational profile shows which motives carry the most weight in one choice, without reducing people to a single driver. It is a Neurofactor working concept that draws on well-known motivation theory but is not validated by it. Use it as a substantiated, choice-specific hypothesis at group level, and test its translation into communication or design in your own context.