Implicit motives and conflict intensity: A meta‐analysis of the roles of power and affiliation

Abstract Implicit motives are theorized to play important roles in driving conflicts toward high‐intensity outcomes like war or low‐intensity outcomes like peaceful resolution. While the link between power motivation and higher conflict intensity is empirically supported, the link between affiliation motivation and lower conflict intensity has been more contentious. This meta‐analysis synthesized evidence from 24 studies ( N = 1258) that compared motive imagery in documents from high‐ vs. low‐intensity conflict contexts. There was a moderate, positive overall effect for power motivation ( k = 45, g = .55, p = .004) that was robust to influential samples and publication bias. By contrast, the effect for affiliation motivation ( k = 41, g = −.19, p = .304) was weaker and highly sensitive to influential samples. Although no investigated moderators were significant in the full data set, a sensitivity analysis suggested that historical era may moderate the power motivation effect. Theoretically, these findings can help refine motivational models of conflict by indicating that while elevated power appears to be a key feature of high‐intensity contexts, the role of affiliation may be more multifaceted and nuanced than previously theorized. Practically, this research can inform intelligence analysis for assessing conflict risk and diplomatic strategies for de‐escalation.