Motivational Persistence Scale (PS)

1. Abstract

The Motivational Persistence Scale (MPS; also referred to in psychometric literature as the Persistence Scale or PS) is a standardized self-report assessment instrument designed to capture the structural multidimensionality of motivational persistence in human goal pursuit. Developed by Ticu Constantin, Andrei Holman, and Ana Maria Hojbotă, the scale formalizes persistence not as an undifferentiated, unitary disposition or brute-force willpower, but as an orchestrated volitional architecture operating across distinct temporal scopes and cognitive-affective valences. The instrument operationalizes motivational persistence through thirteen carefully calibrated items organized into three core psychometric dimensions: Long-term purposes pursuing (focusing on the sustained investment of effort toward overarching aspirations requiring months or years), Current purposes pursuing (reflecting day-to-day task immersion, acute task stickiness, and resilience in the face of proximal obstacles), and Recurrence of unattained purposes (capturing the cognitive resurgence, rumination, and re-engagement tendencies associated with unfulfilled goals and abandoned opportunities, grounded theoretically in the Zeigarnik effect).

Respondents evaluate each item on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (very low degree) to 5 (very high degree). Psychometric evaluations across multiple heterogeneous samples of working adults, university students, and secondary school cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency, with global Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .80 and subscale internal reliabilities ranging from .72 to .79. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm the distinct three-factor oblique configuration, showing superior model fit compared to unidimensional alternatives. The scale demonstrates robust convergent validity with conscientiousness, grit, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy, alongside discriminant validity against generalized anxiety and neurotic distress. Widely utilized in organizational psychology, educational diagnostics, counseling psychology, and occupational performance analysis, the Motivational Persistence Scale delivers nuanced insights into how individuals initiate, maintain, salvage, and mentally revisit their goal-directed endeavors.

2. Keywords

motivational persistence, goal striving, volitional self-regulation, long-term purposes pursuing, current purposes pursuing, recurrence of unattained purposes, Zeigarnik effect, psychometrics, self-determination theory, conscientiousness

3. Authors

The Motivational Persistence Scale was developed and validated by a research team based at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Romania:

• Ticu Constantin, Ph.D. – Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Romania. Dr. Constantin has led extensive research initiatives in organizational diagnosis, employee motivation, psychological capital, and instrument design, having authored foundational texts including Determinanți ai Motivației în Muncă: de la Teorie la Analiza Realității Organizaționale.
• Andrei Holman, Ph.D. – Professor of Social Psychology and Decision Making, Department of Psychology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași. His scholarship focuses on emotional dynamics, moral judgment, cognitive mechanisms of self-regulation, and behavioral economics.
• Ana Maria Hojbotă, Ph.D. – Researcher and psychometrician specializing in educational motivation, volitional engagement, and scale development methodologies, affiliated with Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași.

Institutional contact and correspondence regarding the academic and psychometric utilization of the scale may be directed to the Laboratory of Organizational Diagnosis and Assessment, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Toma Cozma Street 3, Iași 700554, Romania.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Motivational Persistence Scale (PS) is to provide an empirically grounded, structurally differentiated psychometric instrument for measuring individual differences in the capacity and tendency to persevere in goal-directed behaviors over time. While the broader psychological literature has long acknowledged the critical role of persistence in achievement, academic attainment, career advancement, and personal well-being, traditional operationalizations have frequently conflated persistence with brute obstinacy, high energy, or general conscientiousness. In contrast, the MPS isolates the volitional self-regulatory mechanisms that sustain goal engagement across different stages and temporal horizons of the action cycle.

Theoretical Rationale and Diagnostic Need

Human purposive behavior is rarely a continuous, uninhibited sequence of successes; rather, it is characterized by delay, distraction, fatigue, unexpected roadblocks, and competing temptations. Theorists within the psychology of action (e.g., Peter Gollwitzer, Heinz Heckhausen, Julius Kuhl) emphasize that crossing the “Rubicon” from intention formation to action implementation requires specialized volitional competencies. The authors of the MPS recognized that individuals do not struggle with persistence in a uniform manner. An employee or student may display exemplary acute focus when completing an urgent daily task (proximal persistence) yet falter completely when required to remain engaged with an overarching strategic project spanning multiple semesters or corporate quarters (distal persistence). Conversely, an individual might maintain passionate commitment to an overarching vision while consistently stumbling over immediate daily hurdles.

Furthermore, traditional persistence inventories historically neglected the post-actional and non-attainment phase of the motivation cycle. When a goal is blocked or abandoned due to situational constraints, individuals differ fundamentally in their cognitive and emotional detachment. Some individuals completely release unattained goals, whereas others experience recurring cognitive intrusions, mentally reopening the closed files of abandoned initiatives. The MPS was purposely engineered to incorporate this third, often overlooked dimension—Recurrence of unattained purposes—thereby bridging volitional persistence with cognitive tension and goal resumption dynamics.

Research and Applied Applications

The MPS serves versatile purposes across diverse subfields of psychological practice and behavioral inquiry:

• Organizational Psychology and Talent Management: In organizational selection, leadership assessment, and high-stakes performance environments, the MPS enables practitioners to evaluate how candidates manage complex project lifecycles. High scores on Long-term purposes pursuing indicate aptitude for strategic execution, while strong Current purposes pursuing correlates with day-to-day operational stamina, productivity, and resilience against job burnout.
• Educational Diagnostics and Academic Counseling: In academic contexts, students must navigate the tension between immediate assignment deadlines and multi-year degree completion. The MPS aids academic advisors in identifying whether underperforming students suffer from short-term distractibility, long-term horizon drift, or debilitating cognitive preoccupation with past educational setbacks.
• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: In psychotherapeutic frameworks, understanding a client’s persistence profile is pivotal. Excessive recurrence of unattained purposes, when coupled with low proximal execution, can signal maladaptive rumination, depressive cognitive loops, or neurotic perfectionism, providing a clear target for cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBT) and acceptance-based therapies.
• Sports and High-Performance Coaching: Athletes and elite performers require the capacity to train intensely through daily physical discomfort while holding an Olympic or championship horizon in view. The MPS assists sports psychologists in measuring and cultivating these differentiated volitional strata.

5. Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct operationalized by the MPS is motivational persistence, conceptualized as the self-regulatory capacity to maintain, protect, and reignite motivation and effort allocation toward chosen objectives despite time delays, internal or external distractions, fatigue, and emergent failure states. Unlike raw motivation, which reflects the intensity of desire or value assigned to an outcome, persistence captures the active preservation of goal orientation across the temporal continuum. The MPS decomposes this construct into three interrelated yet distinct psychological dimensions.

1. Long-term Purposes Pursuing (LPP)

Long-term purposes pursuing reflects an individual’s enduring volitional commitment to strategic, distal, and temporally extended objectives. This dimension encompasses the ability to sustain enthusiasm, assign subjective importance, and steadily invest resources into endeavors whose payoffs are distant and deferred. In psychological terminology, it represents the antithesis of temporal discounting or delay discounting—the tendency to devalue outcomes that occur far into the future.

Individuals high in LPP possess the psychological stamina to tolerate prolonged incubation periods, navigate bureaucratic delays, and absorb repetitive, unglamorous groundwork. For example, a researcher spending years gathering longitudinal data, or an entrepreneur building an enterprise that requires extensive capitalization before turning a profit, relies heavily on this dimension. Sample scale items reflecting this construct assess remaining motivated during activities that spread over several months (Item 2), utilizing long-term visions to overcome transient daily friction (Item 5), purposeful striving for deeply held projects (Item 8), and continuing investments in ideas requiring years of patience (Item 11).

2. Current Purposes Pursuing (CPP)

Current purposes pursuing captures proximal tenacity, immediate task absorption, and stubborn execution when actively engaged in an ongoing activity. Whereas LPP operates over months and years, CPP is localized within the immediate present and proximal operational window. It reflects what is colloquially termed “task stickiness” or acute tenacity—the refusal to capitulate when an immediate obstacle threatens completion.

This dimension is closely tied to executive function, attentional control, and resistance to immediate ego depletion. Individuals scoring high on CPP display a characteristic “bulldog” tenacity: once an objective is initiated, difficulty and friction serve paradoxically to heighten, rather than dampen, their determination. They exhibit high daily task focus (Item 3), an unyielding stance until completion is achieved (Item 6), continuation of challenging work even when peers have abandoned the effort (Item 9), and escalating resolve in direct proportion to task difficulty (Item 12). Low scores on this dimension manifest as high susceptibility to situational discouragement, procrastination, and premature task disengagement.

3. Recurrence of Unattained Purposes (RUP)

Recurrence of unattained purposes represents the most theoretically innovative dimension of the scale, capturing the cognitive persistence, ongoing mental activation, and psychological non-detachment regarding goals, initiatives, and opportunities that were temporarily interrupted, delayed, or abandoned. While the first two dimensions describe manifest behavioral and motivational continuation, RUP describes the cognitive-affective afterlife of unfulfilled intentions.

This construct is deeply anchored in the classic Zeigarnik effect and Bluma Zeigarnik’s original laboratory findings demonstrating that unfinished tasks maintain an active, unsatisfied tension system within psychological memory structures. In the MPS framework, RUP measures whether an individual completely severs cognitive connection to unreached goals or whether those goals continually resurface in conscious awareness, prompting creative re-evaluation, alternative path generation, and persistent longing. Individuals exhibiting high RUP frequently generate new ideas for older, unresolved problems (Item 1), mentally rehearse ways to reclaim abandoned opportunities (Item 4), persistently reflect upon personal aims that had to be surrendered (Item 7), repeatedly think about past initiatives (Item 10), and experience notable friction when attempting to emotionally detach from bypassed projects (Item 13).

Crucially, RUP can have functional or dysfunctional expressions depending on accompanying traits: when combined with high CPP and LPP, RUP fuels opportunistic re-engagement, creative problem resolution, and adaptive persistence; when isolated or combined with low action orientation, it can foster perseverative rumination and unproductive regret.

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the Motivational Persistence Scale integrates several prominent traditions in personality, cognitive, and organizational psychology. Rather than adopting a simple behaviorist stimulus-response perspective, the instrument is anchored in cognitive-volitional models of human action.

The Rubicon Model of Action Phases and Volitional Psychology

The primary theoretical bedrock of the MPS is Heinz Heckhausen and Peter Gollwitzer’s Rubicon Model of Action Phases. The Rubicon model divides goal realization into four distinct temporal phases: pre-decisional (deliberative), post-decisional / pre-actional (volitional planning), actional (volitional execution), and post-actional (evaluative). The MPS explicitly operationalizes the volitional protective mechanisms that operate across the actional and post-actional phases:

• Action Control Theory (Julius Kuhl): Kuhl’s theory of action control distinguishes between an action orientation (directing attention and energetic resources toward active goal execution) and a state orientation (preoccupation with past failures, emotional states, or alternative intentions). The MPS dimensions of Current and Long-term Purposes Pursuing capture action-oriented self-regulation, representing what Kuhl terms selective attention, encoding control, emotion control, and failure-tolerant activation.
• Post-Actional Re-Evaluation: When an intended goal is thwarted or postponed, traditional theories assumed goal termination. However, the Rubicon framework recognizes that intentions are not always dissolved; they frequently enter an inactive or latent storage state, awaiting renewed environmental affordances or motivational shifts. The RUP subscale assesses this latent activation state.

The Zeigarnik Effect and Lewinian Field Theory

The recurrence dimension directly extends Kurt Lewin’s dynamic field theory and Bluma Zeigarnik’s classic postulate regarding intention-induced tension systems. Lewin posited that accepting a goal creates a quasi-need, establishing psychological tension within the person that is only discharged upon goal fulfillment. Zeigarnik demonstrated experimentally that unfinished tasks are recalled significantly better than finished tasks because the associated cognitive tension maintains heightened mnemonic accessibility.

In the MPS framework, this cognitive phenomenon is elevated from a momentary laboratory effect to a stable individual-difference variable. Individuals differ systematically in the threshold at which they discharge or maintain these intentional tension systems. High RUP individuals possess a persistent cognitive registry that resists total closure, keeping the motivational charge of unfulfilled aspirations alive across months and years.

Self-Determination Theory and Autonomous Goal Pursuits

The MPS also aligns with Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Persistence is not an identical phenomenon when powered by external coercion (controlled motivation) versus deeply internalized identity (autonomous motivation). Item 8 (“I purposefully pursue the achievement of the projects that I believe in”) underscores that high-level persistence is fundamentally sustained by autonomous identification and perceived self-congruence. In the absence of autonomous endorsement, sustained long-term pursuing typically deteriorates into burnout or rigid compliance.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Motivational Persistence Scale has been empirically substantiated through a succession of rigorous validation studies conducted across diverse demographic and organizational cohorts (Constantin, Holman, & Hojbotă, 2011, 2012). These evaluations demonstrate sound construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Structural construct validity was rigorously evaluated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic frameworks. Across initial exploratory analyses with maximum likelihood extraction and oblique rotation, the 13 items consistently loaded cleanly onto their three hypothesized latent factors without substantial cross-loadings. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrated that the three-factor correlated model provided an outstanding fit to empirical data, clearly outperforming rival single-factor (general persistence) and two-factor models. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values remained comfortably below the .06 threshold, with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values consistently exceeding .92 to .95, confirming that the three dimensions represent distinct but interconnected facets of a higher-order motivational architecture.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To ascertain convergent and discriminant validity, the MPS subscales were examined alongside established instruments measuring personality, generalized self-regulation, achievement motivation, and affectivity:

• Big Five Personality Traits: Both Long-term purposes pursuing and Current purposes pursuing exhibited strong, statistically significant positive correlations with Conscientiousness ($r$ values ranging from .42 to .58, $p < .001$), supporting the conceptual premise that persistence is intrinsically bound to self-discipline, dutifulness, and orderliness. Conversely, correlations with Neuroticism were low or negligible for LPP and CPP, confirming that persistence as measured by these scales is not driven by anxious apprehension.
• Grit and Tenacity: Angela Duckworth’s Grit Scale demonstrated substantial convergent alignment with MPS, particularly with the Long-term purposes pursuing dimension ($r > .55$), reinforcing the conceptual overlap between distal persistence and Grit’s “consistency of interest” and “perseverance of effort.”
• General Self-Efficacy: Strong positive relationships were observed between generalized self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem scale) and both CPP ($r \approx .45$) and LPP ($r \approx .48$), substantiating Bandura’s theoretical premise that belief in one’s capability directly fuels persistent effort in the face of adversity.
• Discriminant Nuance of RUP: The Recurrence of unattained purposes subscale demonstrated a uniquely nuanced pattern. While showing weak to moderate positive associations with openness to experience and cognitive curiosity, it showed distinct divergence from pure ruminative depression, retaining a primary orientation toward constructive problem re-engagement rather than helpless self-blame.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The scale possesses demonstrated predictive utility in both educational and employment settings:

• Academic Performance: In longitudinal university cohorts, high scores on LPP and CPP predicted higher grade point averages (GPA) and lower semester dropout rates, accounting for incremental variance beyond high school baseline grades and general cognitive ability.
• Job Performance and Objective Productivity: In commercial sales and project management populations, employees exhibiting superior CPP and LPP profiles attained significantly higher objective quarterly performance ratings and supervisor evaluations of self-starting autonomy.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Motivational Persistence Scale has been demonstrated across multiple validation phases, linguistic adaptations, and sample demographics. Both internal consistency estimates and temporal stability metrics satisfy rigorous psychometric standards for diagnostic and research utilization.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the primary psychometric validation study reported by Constantin, Holman, and Hojbotă (2011, 2012), the instrument displayed solid internal consistency coefficients across all dimensions:

• Overall Motivational Persistence (Full 13-Item Scale): The composite score reliably demonstrates an overall Cronbach’s $\alpha$ of approximately .80 to .84, indicating that while the scale captures distinct sub-dimensions, the items share a cohesive conceptual core.
• Long-Term Purposes Pursuing (LPP; 4 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha = \mathbf{.79}$, demonstrating high internal consistency for a concise 4-item scale. Mean inter-item correlations fall within the optimal .40–.52 range, confirming construct fidelity without redundant item wording.
• Current Purposes Pursuing (CPP; 4 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha = \mathbf{.75}$, reflecting solid homogeneity among items assessing immediate task absorption, friction tolerance, and day-to-day focus.
• Recurrence of Unattained Purposes (RUP; 5 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha = \mathbf{.76}$, confirming that items measuring cognitive reactivation of abandoned initiatives coalesce into a unified psychometric dimension.
• In various subgroup replications (e.g., student samples, corporate workforces), alpha coefficients have consistently remained stable, ranging between .72 and .79 across the individual subscales.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

To establish that the MPS captures a stable individual-difference disposition rather than a fleeting mood state, test-retest analyses were conducted across multi-week intervals:

• Over a 4-week retest window in a non-clinical adult cohort, the test-retest reliability coefficient ($r_{tt}$) for the overall scale was observed at .81 ($p < .001$).
• Individual subscale test-retest correlations were: LPP ($r_{tt} = .78$), CPP ($r_{tt} = .74$), and RUP ($r_{tt} = .76$).
• These coefficients confirm that while motivational states fluctuate based on daily fatigue or transient situational setbacks, individual baseline persistence traits remain markedly stable across time.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the Motivational Persistence Scale has been extensively evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), firmly establishing its three-dimensional configuration.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, an initial pool of over 30 candidate items was subjected to principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood exploratory extraction with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations, reflecting the realistic assumption that motivational dimensions are naturally correlated in psychological functioning. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeded .84, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ($p < .0001$), confirming data suitability for factorization.

Scree plot examination, Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion, and parallel analysis converged on a clean three-factor solution. The final 13-item distillation yielded three well-defined components accounting for substantial total variance:

• Factor 1: Long-Term Purposes Pursuing (LPP) – Comprising Items 2, 5, 8, and 11. Factor loadings ranged from .62 to .81, with negligible cross-loadings onto other factors (< .20).
• Factor 2: Current Purposes Pursuing (CPP) – Comprising Items 3, 6, 9, and 12. Factor loadings ranged from .58 to .77.
• Factor 3: Recurrence of Unattained Purposes (RUP) – Comprising Items 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13. Factor loadings ranged from .55 to .79.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Goodness-of-Fit

Subsequent validation studies tested competitive structural models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent validation samples. The hypothesized three-factor oblique model was contrasted against competing configurations:

The statistical superiority of the 3-factor model is unequivocal. The low $χ² / df$ ratio (< 2.0), CFI/TLI well above .95, and RMSEA well below .05 confirm that separating long-term striving, immediate task tenacity, and the recurrence of unfulfilled goals accurately reflects the underlying psychometric reality of motivational persistence.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Motivational Persistence Scale (MPS) / Persistence Scale (PS)
• Original Authors: Ticu Constantin, Andrei Holman, and Ana Maria Hojbotă (2011, 2012)
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 15+); applicable across educational, occupational, sports, and clinical contexts
• Total Number of Items: 13 items
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale scored as:
  • 1 = very low degree
  • 2 = low degree
  • 3 = moderate degree
  • 4 = high degree
  • 5 = very high degree
• Subscale Structural Breakdown:
  • Long-term purposes pursuing (LPP): 4 items (Items 2, 5, 8, 11). Assesses the capacity to maintain motivation and effort in pursuits spanning months or years.
  • Current purposes pursuing (CPP): 4 items (Items 3, 6, 9, 12). Measures day-to-day focus, acute tenacity, and determination when confronted with immediate task friction.
  • Recurrence of unattained purposes (RUP): 5 items (Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13). Evaluates cognitive re-engagement, persistent ideation, and psychological non-detachment regarding unachieved or abandoned aims.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • All 13 items are phrased positively; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Subscale scores can be derived either as the arithmetic sum or arithmetic mean of the respective constituent items:
    • LPP Raw Score: Sum of items 2 + 5 + 8 + 11 (Range: 4 to 20; Mean Range: 1.0 to 5.0)
    • CPP Raw Score: Sum of items 3 + 6 + 9 + 12 (Range: 4 to 20; Mean Range: 1.0 to 5.0)
    • RUP Raw Score: Sum of items 1 + 4 + 7 + 10 + 13 (Range: 5 to 25; Mean Range: 1.0 to 5.0)
  • Total Motivational Persistence Score: Can be computed as the composite sum (range: 13 to 65) or overall mean (range: 1.0 to 5.0). However, the scale authors strongly recommend interpreting profile patterns across the three individual dimensions, as individuals often exhibit asymmetric configurations (e.g., high LPP paired with moderate CPP and low RUP).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Motivational Persistence Scale was first published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in 2011 (with expanded psychometric documentation appearing in Psihologija in 2012; preliminary conceptual formulations published in Constantin, 2008). The instrument was developed under the auspices of academic research at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași.

Licensing and Research Use: The MPS is an open-access psychometric instrument made freely available by the authors for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and non-profit educational diagnostics. Researchers may reproduce and administer the scale provided that full and accurate scholarly attribution is cited in all resulting theses, presentations, and publications. Commercial applications, including proprietary corporate selection platforms, pre-employment commercial screenings, or monetized digital assessment tools, require prior written authorization and formal licensing agreements from the primary author, Dr. Ticu Constantin, or the relevant university commercialization office.

12. References

• Constantin, T. (2008). Determinanți ai Motivației în Muncă: de la Teorie la Analiza Realității Organizaționale [Determinants of Work Motivation: From Theory to Organizational Reality Analysis]. Iași: Editura Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”.
• Constantin, T., Holman, A., & Hojbotă, A. M. (2012). Development and validation of a Motivational Persistence Scale. Psihologija, 45(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1202099C
• Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
• Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338
• Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research (Vol. 13, pp. 99–171). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-541413-5.50007-3
• Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Zeigarnik, B. (1927). Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen [On the recall of completed and uncompleted tasks]. Psychologische Forschung, 9(1), 1–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02409755

13. Items of the Scale