Advertisement

Novelty–variety as a candidate basic psychological need: New evidence across three studies

  • Leyla Bagheri
  • Marina MilyavskayaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper investigates the plausibility of novelty–variety as a potential basic psychological need in a series of three studies. Using criteria proposed by Baumeister and Leary (Psychol Bull 117:497–529, 1995) and Ryan and Deci (in Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publishing, New York, 2017) to establish a motive as a basic human need, we focus on those criteria where evidence is lacking. Specifically, we examine whether novelty–variety is distinct from other needs in Basic Psychological Need Theory (BPNT) proposed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), whether its absence results in adverse effects and its satisfaction uniquely predicts well-being outcomes, and whether the effects are different across age and personality. In Study 1, participants (N = 202) rated novelty–variety and needs from BPNT (competence, autonomy, relatedness) in three domains to assess its independence from these needs and the extent to which novelty–variety uniquely relates to domain-specific well-being. In Study 2 (N = 414), the fulfillment of novelty–variety and two BPNT needs (autonomy and relatedness) was experimentally manipulated in work-related vignettes, further showing that unsatisfied novelty–variety is related to lower well-being. Finally, the third study (N = 599) accounts for some of the limitations in Study 2 and examines the criteria of universality. Based on the examined criteria, all three studies provide support for further considering novelty–variety as a potential basic psychological need.

Keywords

Psychological needs Novelty Variety Well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from the Social and Humanities Research Council of Canada to M. Milyavskaya.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

L. Bagheri declares that she has no conflict of interest. M. Milyavskaya declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were approved by the institutional research ethics board, and 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.

References

  1. Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–284.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Beike, S., & Zentall, S. S. (2012). “The snake raised its head”: Content novelty alters the reading performance of students at risk for reading disabilities and ADHD. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bench, S. W. (2014). The role of boredom in the pursuit of negative experience. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/152674.
  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 121–156). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  6. Branton, P. (1970). A field study of repetitive manual work in relation to accidents at the workplace. International Journal of Production Research, 8, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? The Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.Google Scholar
  8. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahill-Solis, T. L., & Witryol, S. L. (1994). Children’s exploratory play preferences for four levels of novelty in toy constructions. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 120, 393–408.Google Scholar
  10. CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). 2015. Measuring financial well-being: A guide to using the CFPB Financial Well-Being Scale. Washington, DC: CFPB. http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_financial-well-being-user-guide-scale.pdf.
  11. Chen, B., Assche, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2015a). Does psychological need satisfaction matter when environmental or financial safety are at Risk? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 745–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015b). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., & Yu, A. J. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 362, 933–942.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costa, V. D., Tran, V. L., Turchi, J., & Averbeck, B. B. (2014). Dopamine modulates novelty seeking behavior during decision making. Behavioral Neuroscience, 128(5), 556–566.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school: Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 421–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431–441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  19. DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, A. D. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 729–741.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Düzel, E., Bunzeck, N., Guitart-Masip, M., & Düzel, S. (2010). Novelty-related motivation of anticipation and exploration by dopamine (NOMAD): Implications for healthy aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(5), 660–669.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Eaves, R. C., & Glen, R. (1996). Novelty, age, and IQ: A theoretical look at human preference for novelty. Diagnostique, 22(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eliot, L. (1999). What’s going on in there: How the brain and mind develop in the first five years of life. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  24. Fagan, J. F., & Detterman, D. K. (1992). The fagan test of infant intelligence: A technical summary. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenner, A. A., Straker, L. M., Davis, M. C., & Hagger, M. S. (2013). Theoretical underpinnings of a need-supportive intervention to address sustained healthy lifestyle changes in overweight and obese adolescents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 819–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Francis, Z., & Inzlicht, M. (2016). Proximate and ultimate causes of ego depletion. In E. Hirt (Ed.), Self-regulation and ego control (pp. 373–398). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. González-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A., Sierra, A., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon, C. L., & Luo, S. (2011). The personal expansion questionnaire: Measuring one’s tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Görlitz, D. (1987). Exploration in everyday context: Situational components and processes in children and adults. In D. Görlitz & J. F. Wohwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play (pp. 106–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Guay, F., Valois, P., Falardeau, E., & Lessard, V. (2016). Examining the effects of a professional development program on teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ motivational resources and achievement in written French. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gunnell, K. E., Crocker, P. R., Mack, D. E., Wilson, P. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Goal contents, motivation, psychological need satisfaction, well-being and physical activity: A test of self-determination theory over 6 months. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2010). A script analysis of relational boredom: Causes, feelings, and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(9), 988–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2013). Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and employee creativity: The role of task novelty and personal initiative. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Houillon, A., Lorenz, R. C., Boehmer, W., Rapp, M. A., Heinz, A., Gallinat, J., & Obermayer, K. (2013). The effect of novelty on reinforcement learning. Progress in Brain Research, 202, 415–439.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Juvancic-Heltzel, J. A., Glickman, E. L., & Barkley, J. E. (2013). The effect of variety on physical activity: A cross-sectional study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27, 244–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krebs, R. M., Schott, B. H., Slchütze, H., & Düzel, E. (2009). The novelty exploration bonus and its attentional modulation. Neuropsychologia, 47(11), 2272–2281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527–539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(3), 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  44. Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to Multilevel Modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 842–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nunnally, J. C., & Lemond, L. C. (1973). Exploratory behavior and human development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 59–109). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. O’Hanlon, James F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica, 49, 53–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Parmelee, P. A., & Lawton, M. P. (1990). The design of special environments for the aged. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 464–488).Google Scholar
  48. Radel, R., Pelletier, L., Sarazzin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 919–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing less preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends, work, and well-being: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Schnoebelen, T., & Kuperman, V. (2010). Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija, 43, 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schweizer, T. S. (2006). The psychology of novelty-seeking, creativity and innovation: Neurocognitive aspects within a work-psychological perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(2), 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention model. The oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 901–914). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal functioning: Applying the Multilevel Personality in Context (MPIC) Model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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(2), 325–339.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5(1), 89–102.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Novelty-seeking, novelty-finding, and the developmental continuity of intelligence. Intelligence, 5(2), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sylvester, B. D., Lubans, D. R., Eather, N., Standage, M., Wolf, S. A., McEwan, D., et al. (2016a). Effects of variety support on exercise-related well-being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 8(2), 213–231.Google Scholar
  63. 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(9), 1.Google Scholar
  64. Sylvester, B. D., Standage, M., McEwan, D., Wolf, S. A., Lubans, D. R., Eather, N., et al. (2016b). Variety support and exercise adherence behavior: Experimental and mediating effects. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(2), 214–224.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Tze, V. M. C., Daniels, L. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Evaluating the relationship between boredom and academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wagenmakers, E. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wentworth, N., & Witryol, S. L. (2003). Curiosity, exploration and noveltyseeking. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 281–294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Williams, G. C., Patrick, H., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Lavigne, H. M. (2011). The Smoker’s Health Project: A self-determination theory intervention to facilitate maintenance of tobacco abstinence. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32, 535–543.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wood, L. M. (2004). Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: Consumers in the 18-24 age group. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zukerman, M. (2007). The sensation seeking scale V (SSS-V): Still reliable and valid. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1303–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations