Abstract
The purpose of this research was to test novelty as a candidate basic psychological need according to the inclusion criteria established within basic psychological needs theory (BPNT). Two cross-sectional studies with 303 (Mage = 33.50, SD = 12.95; 58.41% female) and 598 (Mage = 35.47, SD = 11.89; 54.18% female) Spanish adults were conducted in physical exercise and general life contexts with the following aims: (1) to analyze relations between novelty satisfaction/frustration and well-being outcomes; (2) to examine the mediating role of motivation (autonomous, controlled, and amotivation) in these relations; and (3) to study whether these associations held regardless of the importance participants attached to the need for novelty, and their level of openness to new experiences. In Study 1, satisfaction of the need for novelty positively and directly predicted autonomous motivation and vitality in physical exercise, beyond the three existing basic needs. It also indirectly predicted enjoyment and vitality through autonomous motivation. There was little evidence that importance ratings for need for novelty moderated these relations. In Study 2, novelty satisfaction positively predicted, and novelty frustration negatively predicted, vitality, life satisfaction, and meaning in life. Openness to experience strengthened the relations between novelty satisfaction/frustration and outcomes. A similar pattern of effects was found for the three basic psychological needs. Results provide preliminary support of novelty as an additional candidate need in BPNT.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We also tested a supplementary hypothesis about need importance and need satisfaction in satisfying life events that was not directly germane to the current article, but may be of peripheral interest to scholars of basic psychological needs theory. This information is provided in Appendix 1.
Data files, analysis output files, and interaction plots are available online at https://osf.io/jwx57/.
An inspection across the different types of motivation revealed that this change was probably because autonomy satisfaction only predicted intrinsic motivation whereas novelty satisfaction predicted intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation.
Data files, analysis output files, and interaction plots are available online at https://osf.io/jwx57/.
Considering the high correlation found between autonomy need frustration and novelty need frustration, we tested an alternative model in which the items of these two constructs indicated a single latent variable. Fit indices [χ2(506, N = 598) = 1444.08, p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .056 (90% CI .052–.059); SRMR = .052] indicated poorer fit for this model than those obtained for the eight-factor correlated model.
Although this correlation was high, if we removed the two novelty subscales from this model, the correlation was higher (− .88) and the fit indices were similar [χ2(245, N = 598) = 870.95, p < .001; CFI = .90; TLI = .89; RMSEA = .065 (90% CI .061–.070); SRMR = .064].
References
Atienza, F. L., Pons, D., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M. (2000). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de satisfacción con la vida en adolescentes [Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale in adolescents]. Psicothema,12, 314–319.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Baxter, D. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Canadian Psychology,60, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000145.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series B (Mehodological),57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Birdsell, B. J. (2018). Understanding students’ psychological needs in an English learning context. Journal of Liberal Arts Development and Practices,2, 1–14.
Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation modeling. Social Indicators Research,52, 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007136110218.
Castillo, I., Tomás, I., & Balaguer, I. (2017). The Spanish-version of the Subjective Vitality Scale: Psychometric properties and evidence of validity. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,20, E26. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.22.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L, Deci, E. L., Van der Kapp-Deeder, et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (Neo-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology,29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288)., Perspectives on motivation Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: A new frontier in self-determination research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,11, 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Fritz, M. M., Walsh, L. C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). Staying happier. In M. D. Robinson & M. Eid (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 95–114). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_6.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion,27, 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality,40, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.
González-Cutre, D., & Sicilia, A. (2019). The importance of novelty satisfaction for multiple positive outcomes in physical education. European Physical Education Review,25, 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18783980.
González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A., & Fernández, A. (2010). Hacia una mayor comprensión de la motivación en el ejercicio físico: Medición de la regulación integrada en el contexto español [Toward a deeper understanding of motivation towards exercise: Measurement of integrated regulation in the Spanish context]. Psicothema,22, 841–847.
González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A., Sierra, A. C., Ferriz, R., & Hagger, M. S. (2016). Understanding the need for novelty from the perspective of self-determination theory. Personality and Individual Differences,102, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.036.
González-Cutre, D., Sierra, A. C., Montero-Carretero, C., Cervelló, E., Esteve-Salar, J., & Alonso-Álvarez, J. (2015). Evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Satisfacción de las Necesidades Psicológicas Básicas en General con adultos españoles [Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Scale of Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs in General with Spanish adults]. Terapia Psicológica,33, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082015000200003.
Hagger, M. S., Hardcastle, S. J., Chater, A., Mallet, C., Pal, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014). Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: Between- and within-participants analyses. Health Psychology & Behavioural Medicine,2, 565–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2014.912945.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Kashdan, T. B. (2004). Curiosity. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 125–141). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 367–375). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron,88, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010.
Lee, S. A., Manthiou, A., Chiang, L., & Tang, L. R. (2018). An assessment of value dimensions in hiking tourism: Pathways toward quality of life. International Journal of Tourism Research,20, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2176.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin,116, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75.
Mabbe, E., Soenenes, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2016). Do personality traits moderate relations between psychologically controlling parenting and problem behavior in adolescents? Journal of Personality,84, 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12166.
Mabbe, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Dieleman, L., Mouratidis, A., & Soenens, B. (2018). The role of child personality in effects of psychologically controlling parenting: An examination at the level of daily fluctuations. European Journal of Personality,32, 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2156.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,26, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.191.
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality,84, 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12215.
Moreno, J. A., González-Cutre, D., Chillón, M., & Parra, N. (2008a). Adaptación a la educación física de la escala de las necesidades psicológicas básicas en el ejercicio [Adaptation of the basic psychological needs in exercise scale to physical education]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología,25, 295–303.
Moreno, J. A., González-Cutre, D., Martínez Galindo, C., Alonso, N., & López de San Román, M. (2008b). Propiedades psicométricas de la Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) en el contexto español [Psychometric properties of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) in the Spanish context]. Estudios de Psicología,29, 173–180.
Moreno, J. A., López de San Román, M., Martínez Galindo, C., Alonso, N., & González-Cutre, D. (2008c). Peers’ influence on exercise enjoyment: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine,7, 23–31.
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,21, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00326-9.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2019). A neuroscientific perspective on basic psychological needs. Journal of Personality,87, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12390.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26, 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality,65, 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.379.
Schüler, J., Wegner, M., & Knechtle, B. (2013). Implicit motives and basic need satisfaction in extreme endurance sports. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,36, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0191.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.001.0001.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P. A., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology,53, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P. A., & Zacchanini, J. L. (2008). Terrorism in two cultures: Stress and growth following September 11 and the Madrid train bombings. Journal of Loss and Trauma,13, 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020802173660.
Sylvester, B. D., Jackson, B., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2018). The effects of variety and novelty on physical activity and healthy nutritional behaviors. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances on motivation science (Vol. 5, pp. 169–202). San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2017.11.001.
Sylvester, B. D., Standage, M., Dowd, A. J., Martin, L. J., Sweet, S. N., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2014). Perceived variety, psychological needs satisfaction and exercise-related well-being. Psychology & Health,29, 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.907900.
Van Assche, J., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Audenaert, E., De Schryver, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). Are the benefits of autonomy satisfaction and the costs of autonomy frustration dependent on individuals’ autonomy strength? Journal of Personality,86, 1017–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12372.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2005). Interaction of external, introjected, and identified regulation with intrinsic motivation in exercise: Relationships with exercise enjoyment. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research,10, 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.2005.tb00007.x.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,10, 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee1003_4.
Wilson, P. M., Longley, K., Muon, S., Rodgers, W. M., & Murray, T. C. (2006a). Examining the contributions of perceived psychological need satisfaction to well-being in exercise. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research,11, 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.2007.00008.x.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., & Scime, G. (2006b). «It’s who I am … really! » . The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research,11, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.2006.tb00021.x.
Young, K. C., Machell, K. A., Kashdan, T. B., & Westwater, M. L. (2018). The cascade of positive events: Does exercise on a given day increase the frequency of additional positive events. Personality and Individual Differences,120, 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.032.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521432006.
Funding
The contribution of Martin S. Hagger was supported by a Finland Distinguished Professor (FiDiPro) award (Dnro 1801/31/2105) from Business Finland, the Finnish funding agency for innovation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Participants in Study 1 were asked for the explicit importance assigned to each of the basic psychological needs and the need for novelty in their life, and they also were asked to rate the satisfaction of these needs with respect to a recent satisfying event in their life (Sheldon et al. 2001). The question about satisfying events was an indirect means to measure participants’ need importance. It was formulated to take into account that basic psychological needs seem to be related to optimal development regardless of how conscious people are of its importance (Chen et al. 2015). People may not explicitly regard novelty as an important need in general life contexts, but it may still contribute to their actions toward specific satisfying events beyond their conscious awareness. Therefore, considering that satisfying events play a unique function in the pursuit of happiness and meaning in life (Fritz et al. 2017; Young et al. 2018), satisfaction of the need for novelty may be associated to positive functioning (Ryan and Deci 2017). We hypothesized that novelty satisfaction would score highly in relation to satisfying events, although people considered this need less important than the three basic psychological needs. This hypothesis would represent an exploratory approach to the sixth inclusion criterion, since satisfaction of novelty would be evidenced regardless of whether or not people explicitly valued this need.
Measures
Need satisfaction in a satisfying life event
We employed the same instrument described to measure need importance in general life but modified the instructions to refer to a recent satisfying life event. Participants were asked to recall and write a brief paragraph on a recent satisfying experience prior to completing the scales. Items were formulated in past tense and preceded by the common stem “During that experience I felt that…”.
Data analysis
To analyze the importance of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and novelty in participants’ lives, we conducted a descriptive analysis of the scores obtained both directly (importance assigned in general life) and indirectly (need satisfaction in a satisfying life event). Significant differences between mean scores of each need were calculated using paired samples t-tests. The Benjamini–Hochberg procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) with a false discovery rate of .05 was used in this analysis to reduce the number of false positives due to multiple comparisons.
Descriptive analysis of the basic psychological needs and the need for novelty in life
Variables | Importance in general life | Satisfying event | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | α | M | SD | α | |
Autonomy | 6.65 | .58 | .77 | 6.00 | 1.04 | .73 |
Competence | 6.24 | .79 | .77 | 5.60 | 1.01 | .62 |
Relatedness | 6.12 | .77 | .75 | 6.00 | .91 | .81 |
Novelty | 6.05 | .95 | .92 | 6.14 | 1.06 | .89 |
We show descriptive data about the importance participants assigned to the basic psychological needs and the need for novelty in general life, and their satisfaction in a specific satisfying life event. Regarding the importance in general life all needs obtained high values according to the scales used. Taking into account the Benjamini–Hochberg critical value, autonomy was the need obtaining the highest mean score and was significantly different from competence (t = 10.11, df= 302, p < .001, d = 1.16), relatedness (t = 12.65, df= 302, p < .001, d = 1.45) and novelty (t = 13.24, df= 302, p < .001, d = 1.52). Competence also obtained a higher score than relatedness (t = 2.65, df = 302, p = .008, d = 0.30) and novelty (t = 5.08, df = 302, p < .001, d = 0.58). In relation to the specific satisfying life event, the satisfaction of the need for novelty obtained the highest score, which was significantly different from competence (t = 9.58, df= 302, p < .001, d = 1.10) and relatedness (t = 2.27, df= 302, p = .023, d = 0.26). The p value for the difference between novelty satisfaction and autonomy satisfaction in the satisfying life event (t = 1.98, df= 302, p = .048, d = 0.23) was marginally higher than the Benjamini–Hochberg critical value (.042) and, therefore, this difference was considered not significant.
Discussion
The need for novelty obtained the lowest score when people were asked to assign importance to the three basic psychological needs and the need for novelty in their lives, although it should be noted that all needs obtained high values. However, when participants were asked about the degree of satisfaction of these needs in a specific satisfying life event, novelty obtained the highest score. Therefore, although participants considered novelty as the least important of these needs, results showed that novelty need satisfaction seemed to play a significant role in satisfying life events that lead to well-being, such as finishing a university degree, getting a job, leaving their parents’ home, getting married, experiencing the birth of a child or grandchild, traveling to a desired place, or achieving sport challenges. Based on these results, novelty satisfaction could be important for human development regardless of the importance assigned to this need.
Appendix 2
See Table 4.
Appendix 3
See Table 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
González-Cutre, D., Romero-Elías, M., Jiménez-Loaisa, A. et al. Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motiv Emot 44, 295–314 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09812-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09812-7