Haesevoets, Reinders Folmer, and Van Hiel (2015) have shown limited consistency of people’s behaviour across various mixed-motive games. According to these authors, the modest relationships among these games call into question the general idea that all mixedmotive games render the conflict between selfish interests and concern for others equally salient. Thielmann, Böhm, and Hilbig (2015), however, argued that these findings can be explained in terms of the motivational differences that underlie the games. In this article, we demonstrate that Thielmann et al.’s descriptive model of the different motives underlying selfish and prosocial choices cannot be straightforwardly applied to the empirical data at hand. Analogous to our previous article, we again stress the need for further empirical research investigating the underlying motivational basis of each mixed-motive game. Keywords: mixed-motive games, motivational basis, selfish choice, prosocial choice