www.rsisinternational.org
Page 572
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Mapping English Majors’ Motivation Using McClelland’s Theory:
The Relationship between Achievement and Power
Zachariah Aidin Druckman
1*
, Muhammad Haekal Kamarulzaman
2
, Shafiyah Mohamad Khalil
3
, Siti
Rahmah Abdullah
4
, Noor Hanim Rahmat
5
1,2,3,5
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA
4
Fakulti Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0058
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 31 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Motivation is central to learners’ engagement and success, with McClelland’s Acquired Needs Theory
highlighting achievement, power, and affiliation as key drivers. This study examined undergraduate motivation
through this framework, focusing on the underexplored role of power. A quantitative survey of 140
undergraduates using a 24-item Likert questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) showed strong reliability (α =
.818). Results revealed a strong positive correlation between achievement and power, suggesting both
significantly shape academic motivation, while affiliation showed weak negative links to the other needs.
These findings indicate students are motivated by a blend of intrinsic mastery goals and extrinsic recognition.
The study suggests educators should leverage achievement and power motives while supporting constructive
peer relations. Future research should examine discipline-specific contexts to refine these insights.
Keywords: (Learner Motivation, McClelland’s Theory, Motivation to Learn)
INTRODUCTION
Motivation is a key factor in learning, influencing achievement and well-being (Trautner et al., 2025).
According to McClelland’s Acquired Needs Theory, three needs, achievement, power, and affiliation, shape
motivation and behaviour. Motivated learners engage actively and respond positively even without rewards
(Gopalan et al., 2017). Yet, low academic motivation remains common (Legault et al., 2006). This study
applies McClelland’s theory to examine why such problems persist.
Research shows significant links between McClelland’s needs and student achievement (Corpuz, 2022; Rahim
et al., 2023). These needs often work in combination rather than alone (Saufianim et al., 2023). However, the
role of power is less clear, with some findings showing little effect on collaboration compared to achievement
and affiliation (Rodjanatham, 2025). Moreover, much research is drawn from limited cultural or online
contexts, reducing generalizability. This study addresses these gaps by using a person-centered framework and
valid measures to explore how the three needs, individually and together, influence learner motivation.
This study investigates learning motivation through McClelland’s framework by asking:
1. How does achievement influence learning motivation?
2. How does power influence learning motivation?
3. What is the relationship among these needs in shaping learning motivation?
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 573
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Framework of the Study
McClelland’s Theory of Motivation identifies three learned needs, achievement, affiliation, and power, which
influence human behaviour and can explain learner motivation (McClelland, 1961; Siok et al., 2023). Learners
driven by achievement aim to improve performance and embrace challenges; those high in affiliation value
relationships with peers and teachers (Gafarurrozi et al., 2024); while power-driven learners seek control over
their own or others’ learning (Rahmat & Thasrabiab, 2024).
Other frameworks also address learning motivation. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954) emphasizes
progression from basic survival needs to self-actualization, with motivated learners advancing toward higher
cognitive engagement (Deshmukh et al., 2021). Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory stresses
competence, autonomy, and relatedness as drivers of effective learning, highlighting how intrinsic and extrinsic
motives interact (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Guay, 2022; Liu et al., 2025). Collectively, these perspectives underline
that learning motivation stems from multiple, often overlapping needs.
Past Studies
Research shows that both internal and external factors significantly shape learning motivation. Pranawengtias
(2022) found that extrinsic elements such as rewards, punishments, and lecturer quality played a greater role
than intrinsic factors in motivating undergraduates to learn English. Similarly, Atma et al. (2021), in a study of
141 elementary students, reported that teaching style and student motivation positively affected academic
achievement. These findings highlight that strong instructional practices and external reinforcements are
closely tied to student outcomes.
Together, past studies suggest that motivation is multifaceted and context-dependent. While intrinsic factors
matter, extrinsic drivers and teaching approaches appear to play a dominant role in sustaining learner
engagement and performance.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
This study adopts McClelland’s theory as its foundation. The need for achievement relates to goal orientation
and task value, where learners strive to excel (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). The need for power reflects learners’
self-regulation and belief in controlling their own learning (Rahmat & Thasrabiab, 2024). The need for
affiliation emphasizes belonging, with students motivated by social connection and fear of exclusion
(McClelland, 1965; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990).
The framework also considers interrelations among the three needs, achievement and power, power and
affiliation, and affiliation and achievement, acknowledging that motivation is rarely shaped by one factor alone
but by their combined influence.
METHODOLOGY
This quantitative study is done to explore different types of learning needs for undergraduates. A random
sample of 140 participants pursuing English as a major responded to the survey. The instrument used is a 5
Likert-scale survey. Table 1 below shows the categories used for the Likert scale; 1 is for Never, 2 is for
Rarely, 3 is for Sometimes, 4 is for Very Often and 5 is for Always.
Table 1 shows the distribution of items in the survey. This study is rooted from McClelland’s (1965) theory of
needs and the instrument is replicated from Pintrich & DeGroot (1990) to reveal the variables in table below.
Section B has 12 items on need for Achievement. Section C has 7 items for need for Power.
The study measured motivation using constructs adapted from McClelland’s (1965) theory of needs, with three
main categories: achievement, power, and affiliation. For the need for achievement, the value component was
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 574
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
assessed through three sub-constructs: intrinsic goal orientation (4 items), extrinsic goal orientation (3 items),
and task value beliefs (5 items), giving a total of 12 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .814. The need for power
was measured through the expectancy component, consisting of students’ perception of self-efficacy (5 items)
and control beliefs for learning (2 items), totaling 7 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .823.
Table 1 Reliability Assessment
Section
Type of Need
Cronbach Alpha
B
Need for Achievement
.814
C
Need for Power
.823
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Findings for Need for Achievement
Table 2 Mean for Intrinsic Goal Orientation
Item
SD
MSVCQ4: When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose course assignments that I
can learn from even if they don't guarantee a good grade.
1.0
MSVCQ3: The most satisfying thing for me in this program is trying to understand the
content of the courses.
0.9
MSVCQ2: In the courses of a program like this, I prefer course materials that arouse my
curiosity, even if they are difficult to learn.
0.9
MSVCQ1: In this program, I prefer class work that is challenging so I can learn new
things.
0.8
Table 2 presents the mean scores for intrinsic goal orientation. The highest mean was for item MSVCQ 3
(M=3.8, SD=0.9), where students reported greatest satisfaction in understanding course content. This was
followed by item MSVCQ 2 (M=3.5, SD=0.9), indicating a preference for materials that sparked curiosity
despite difficulty. Item MSVCQ 4 (M=3.2, SD=1.0) showed that students often chose assignments they could
learn from even without guaranteed good grades. The lowest mean was item MSVCQ 1 (M=3.1, SD=0.8),
reflecting a weaker preference for challenging classwork to learn new things.
Table 3 Mean for Extrinsic Goal Orientation
Item
M
SD
MSEQG3: I want to do well in the classes because it is important to show my ability to my
family, friends, or others.
4.2
1.0
MSEQG2: The most important thing for me right now is improving my overall grade point
average, so my main concern in this program is getting a good grade.
4.5
0.7
MSEQG1: Getting a good grade in the classes is the most satisfying thing for me right
now.
4.5
0.8
Table 3 shows the mean scores for extrinsic goal orientation. The highest means were for item MSEGQ 2
(M=4.5, SD=0.7), where students prioritized improving GPA, and item MSEGQ 1 (M=4.5, SD=0.8), where
they valued good grades. The lowest was item MSEGQ 3 (M=4.2, SD=1.0), indicating students wanted to
perform well mainly to demonstrate ability to others.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 575
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Table 4 Mean for Task Value Beliefs
Item
M
SD
MSTVQ5: Understanding the subject matter of the courses is very important to me.
4.3
0.7
MSTVQ4: I like the subject matter of the courses.
4.0
0.8
MSTVQ3: I think the course material in the courses of this program is useful for me to
learn.
4.3
0.7
MSTVQ2: It is important for me to learn the course materials in the courses.
4.2
0.8
MSTVQ1: I think I will be able to transfer what I learn from one course to other courses in
this program.
3.8
0.9
Table 4 presents the mean scores for task value beliefs. The highest means were item MSTVQ 3 (M=4.3,
SD=0.7), where students found course materials useful, and item MSTVQ 5 (M=4.3, SD=0.7), emphasizing
the importance of understanding subject matter. This was followed by item MSTVQ 2 (M=4.2, SD=0.8),
stressing the importance of learning course content, and item MSTVQ 4 (M=4.0, SD=0.8), showing students’
liking for the subject matter. The lowest mean was item MSTVQ 1 (M=3.8, SD=0.9), reflecting weaker belief
in transferring learning across courses.
Findings for Need for Power
Table 5 Mean for Students’ Perception of Self-Efficacy
Item
M
SD
ECSEQ5c: Considering the difficulty of the courses, the teachers, and my skills, I think I will
do well in the classes.
3.4
0.8
ECSEQ4c: I'm certain I can master the skills being taught in the classes.
3.4
0.8
ECSEQ3c: I'm confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this
program.
3.4
0.8
ECSEQ2c: I'm confident I can understand the most complex materials presented by the
instructors in the courses.
3.1
0.8
ECSEQ1: I believe I will receive excellent grades in the classes.
3.2
0.8
Findings on self-efficacy show that students reported moderately high confidence in their academic abilities,
with means ranging from 3.1 to 3.4 on a 4-point scale. The lowest score (M=3.1, SD=0.8) was for
understanding complex materials, while the highest (M=3.4, SD=0.8) appeared in doing well on assignments,
mastering class skills, and performing in courses despite challenges. Overall, students believed in their
academic ability, though confidence was weaker for complex content.
Table 6 Mean for Control Beliefs for Learning
Item
M
ECCBQ2: If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course materials.
4.5
ECCBQ1: If I study in appropriate ways, then I will be able to learn the material in the
courses of this program.
4.2
Table 6 shows the mean scores for control beliefs in learning. The highest was item 2 (M=4.5, SD=0.6), where
students believed, effort would lead to understanding course materials, followed by item 1 (M=4.2, SD=0.7),
reflecting confidence in learning through appropriate study methods.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 576
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Relationship between Need for Achievement and Need for Power
Table 7 Correlation between Need for Achievement and Need for Power
Achievement
Power
Achievement
Pearson (Correlation
1
.541**
Sig (2-tailed)
.000
N
140
140
Power
Pearson (Correlation
.541**
1
Sig (2-tailed)
.000
N
140
140
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)
Table 7 shows a strong positive correlation between need for achievement and need for power (r = .541**, p =
.000). Based on Jackson’s (2015) scale, this falls within the strong range (0.5–1.0), confirming a significant
association between the two variables.
CONCLUSION
This study mapped motivation among English-major undergraduates in Malaysia using McClelland’s Acquired
Needs framework, focusing on achievement, power, and affiliation. Results show a predominantly
performance-oriented profile: extrinsic goals—especially improving GPA and securing high grades (MSEGQ 1
& 2, M = 4.5)—were the strongest drivers, echoing Pranawengtias (2022). Intrinsic motives (satisfaction from
understanding course content and curiosity-driven learning) were present but less dominant (MSVCQ items M
≈ 3.1–3.8). Task-value scores were high (MSTVQ items M ≈ 3.8–4.3), indicating students view course content
as useful and important even if mastery is uneven.
Power-related constructs also played a central role. Students reported moderately high self-efficacy (M ≈ 3.1–
3.4 on a 4-point scale) and strong control beliefs—notably the conviction that effort yields understanding (M =
4.5). The statistically strong positive correlation between achievement and power (r = .541**, p = .000)
suggests these needs operate together: striving for grades and status aligns with beliefs about personal control
and competence. By contrast, affiliation showed limited influence and weak negative association with power,
implying that, in this cohort, performance and control often outweigh social-bonding motives.
Together, the findings support McClelland’s contention that needs combine differently across contexts: here,
achievement and power dominate to create a performance-centered motivational pattern, while affiliation is
secondary. Practically, educators should harness students’ achievement and power motives by setting clear
performance benchmarks, recognizing effort and progress, and structuring tasks that reward mastery—while
intentionally cultivating cooperative activities to strengthen affiliation where desirable.
Future research should probe discipline-specific differences (e.g., single-faculty or cross-faculty comparisons)
to see whether the dominance of achievement–power is stable across fields or shaped by program culture,
assessment design, and teaching practices. Such targeted studies will help tailor interventions that balance
performance incentives with social and intrinsic motivators (Pranawengtias, 2022; Atma et al., 2021;
McClelland, 1965). Comparing motivation across majors reveals discipline-specific motivational traits and
their relevance to the program. Including a qualitative component, such as semi-structured interviews or focus
groups, would provide an improved understanding of student motivation. Although the quantitative survey
identified the correlations, qualitative data could investigate the reasons for these correlations, elucidating the
personal contexts, emotions, and interpretations that underlie students' self-reported needs. A long-term study
is able to track students' motivation during the duration of their study to provide insight on how their needs
mature which would then reveal their changes and the effects of the students’ academic experiences.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 577
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Researchers could investigate whether this is a consistent pattern among high-achieving, power-motivated
students and whether it results in any adverse social or academic consequences for them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express our deepest gratitude to everyone who have contributed to the success of this
study. The authors would like also to gratefully acknowledge the participation of all respondents, whose time
and contributions were essential to the completion of this study. If not for their responses, this study would not
be possible.
REFERENCES
1. Atma, B. A., Azahra, F. F., Mustadi, A., & Colomeischi A. A. (2021). Teaching style, learning motivation,
and learning achievement: do they have significant and positive relationships? Jurnal Prima Edukasia,
9(1), 23-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.21831/jpe.v9i1.33770
2. Corpuz, J. T., Peña, G. S., & Baconguis, R. D. (2022). Achievement, affiliation, power and academic
performance of business management students of a state university in Cavite, Philippines. Cogent Social
Sciences, 8(1), Article 2060538. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2060538
3. Deshmukh, A., Mahavan, N., & Atole, P. (2021). The Impact of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs on Learner
Motivation and Classroom Dynamics. Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 72-76.
https://naac.mituniversity.ac.in/NAAC/3_4_4/Education_Paper_13.pdf
4. Gafarurrozi, M., Fathurrohman, R., Prihantoro, W. K., & Sugianto, H. (2024). Dynamics of Motivation in
PAI Learning Study of McClelland's Theory of Motivation and Its Application in Improving Student
Achievement. Journal of Contemporary Islamic Education, 4(2), 233-242.
5. Gopalan, V., Abu Bakar, J. A., Zulkifli, A. N., Alwi, A., & Che Mat, R. (2017). A review of the motivation
theories in learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1891(1), 020043. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005376
6. Guay, J. (2022). Applying Self-Determination Theory to Education: Regulations Types, Psychological
Needs, and Autonomy Supporting Behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75-92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355
7. Jackson, S.L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5
tH
Edition) Boston,
USA: Cengage Learning.
8. Kurt, S. (2022, October 17). McClelland's Three Needs Theory: Power, Achievement and Affiliation.
Education Library. https://educationlibrary.org/mcclellands-three-needs-theory-power-achievement-and-
affiliation/
9. Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the
classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567
10. Liu, H., Wang, Y., & Wang, H. (2025). Exploring the mediating roles of motivation and boredom in basic
psychological needs and behavioural engagement in English learning: a self-determination theory
perspective. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02524-3
11. Maslow, A. H. (1954). A Theory of Human Motivation. New York: Harper & Row.
12. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14359-000
13. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20(5), 321–
333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022225
14. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning Components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. Retrieved from
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
15. Pranawengtias, W. (2022). Undergraduate students' motivation on English language learning at Universitas
Teknokrat Indonesia. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 27-32.
http://jim.teknokrat.ac.id/index.php/english-language-teaching/index
16. Rahim, M. A., Puteh, F. M., Mahmud, M. B., Soegiono, A. G., & Rahmat, N. H. (2022). Investigating the
source of motivation for online learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 12(1), 2189–2208
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 578
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
17. Rahmat, N.H., & Thasrabiab, T. (2024) Exploring Motivation and Self-Regulation from The Social
Cognitive View. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 14(10),
3276-3290. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i1/20476
18. Rodjanatham, T. & Badir, Y. F. (2025) Motivation matters: The role of achievement, affiliation, and power
needs in digital peer collaboration among business school students. Computers in Human Behavior
Reports (19) 100746. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958825001617?via%3Dihub
19. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
20. Saufianim, Izni, N. A., Mahmood, N. A., Tajuddin, N. I. I., Zainuddin, N., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023).
Affiliation, achievement and power in learning motivation: How do they relate? International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(3), 215–234.
https://kwpublications.com/papers/detail/IJAREG/8664/Affiliation-Achievement-and-Power-in-Learning-
Motivation-How-Do-They-Relate?utm
21. Siok, T. H., Sim, M. S., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). Motivation to Learn Online: An Analysis from
Mcclelland’s Theory of Needs. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 13(3), 200–218. https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/16471/motivation-to-learn-online-an-
analysis-from-mcclellands-theory-of-needs.pdf
22. Trautner, M., Grunschel, C., & Schwinger, M. (2025). Motivating Motivation Regulation Research—An
Evidence and Gap Map approach. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
025-10019-1
23. Trautner, M., Grunschel, C., & Schwinger, M. (2025). Motivating Motivation Regulation Research—An
Evidence and Gap Map approach. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
025-10019-1