Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Momentary Happiness: The Role of Psychological Need Satisfaction

  • Ryan T. Howell
  • David Chenot
  • Graham Hill
  • Colleen J. Howell
Research paper

Abstract

Psychological well-being correlates positively with psychological need satisfaction—primarily the needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The current study explores momentary happiness (defined as experienced enjoyment minus experienced stress over the course of an hour) as a function of momentary psychological need satisfaction. Results demonstrate that hour-by-hour ratings of psychological need satisfaction were correlated with momentary happiness, with individual differences in life satisfaction moderating this relationship. Ratings of autonomy and relatedness correlated positively with momentary happiness, while competence was negatively correlated with momentary happiness. Thus, engagement in competence-promoting behaviors may come at an affective cost, at least in the moment. When autonomy and relatedness needs were met, individuals with high levels of life satisfaction experienced greater increases in happiness than individuals with low levels of life satisfaction. This finding supports a sensitization model of well-being. Results are discussed with respect to their implications for self-determination theory (SDT).

Keywords

Subjective well-being Happiness Self-determination theory Psychological needs 

References

  1. Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353–373). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Arthaud-Day, M. L., & Near, J. P. (2005). The wealth of nations and the happiness of nations: Why “accounting” matters. Social Indicators Research, 74, 511–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychology Bulletin, 117, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bem, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situation. Psychological Review, 85, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Interpersonal attraction and close relationships. Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Alpine.Google Scholar
  8. Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1990). Origins and function of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1990: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn, J., & Oishi, S. (2006). Psychological needs and emotional well-being in older and younger Koreans and Americans. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(4), 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hershey, J. W. (1999). Personality traits and personal goals in everyday behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
  17. Howell, R. T., & Rodzon, K. S. (2009). An exploration of personality-affect relations in daily life: Determining the support for the affect-level and affect-reactivity models. Unpublished manuscript, San Francisco State University, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method (DRM). Science, 1776–1780, 306.Google Scholar
  19. Kashdan, T. B., Julian, T., Merritt, K., & Uswatte, G. (2006). Social anxiety and posttraumatic stress in combat veterens: Relations to well-being and character strengths. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kasser, V. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness to health, vitality, well-being and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 935–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event and interval contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2005). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (Version 6) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitaion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheldon, K., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S. S., & DeVries, M. W. (1999). Ecological momentary assessment. In D. Kahneman & E. Diener (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 26–39). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  38. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness among Chinese sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and adjustment? Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vittersǿ, J., & Nilsen, F. (2002). The conceptual and relational structure of subjective well-being, neuroticism, and extraversion: Once again, neuroticism is the important predictor of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 57, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Unpublished manuscript [updated 8/99], University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan T. Howell
    • 1
  • David Chenot
    • 2
  • Graham Hill
    • 1
  • Colleen J. Howell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social WorkCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations