Three experiments were conducted to develop a computer-based measure of individual differences in resultant achievement motivation (RAM) on the basis of level-of-aspiration, achievement motivation, and dynamics-of-action theories. In Experiment 1, the number of atypical shifts and greater responsiveness to incentives on 21 trials with choices among easy, intermediate, and difficult levels of an achievement-oriented game were positively correlated and were found to differentiate the 62 subjects (31 men, 31 women) on the amount of time they spent at a nonachievement task (watching a color design) 1 week later. In Experiment 2, test-retest reliability was established with the use of 67 subjects (15 men, 52 women). Point and no-point trials were offered in blocks, with point trials first for half the subjects and no-point trials first for the other half. Reliability was higher for the atypical-shift measure than for the incentive-responsiveness measure and was higher when points were offered first. In Experiment 3, computer anxiety was manipulated by creating a simulated computer breakdown in the experimental condition. Fifty-nine subjects (13 men, 46 women) were randomly assigned to the experimental condition or to one of two control conditions (an interruption condition and a no-interruption condition). Subjects with low RAM, as demonstrated by a low number of typical shifts, took longer to choose the achievement-oriented task, as predicted by the dynamics-of-action theory. The difference was evident in all conditions and most striking in the computer-breakdown condition. A change of focus from atypical to typical shifts is discussed.