Skip to main content

Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    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.

  2. 2.

    Data files, analysis output files, and interaction plots are available online at https://osf.io/jwx57/.

  3. 3.

    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.

  4. 4.

    Data files, analysis output files, and interaction plots are available online at https://osf.io/jwx57/.

  5. 5.

    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.

  6. 6.

    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

  1. 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.

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Birdsell, B. J. (2018). Understanding students’ psychological needs in an English learning context. Journal of Liberal Arts Development and Practices,2, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521432006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David González-Cutre.

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.

Table 4 Results of moderated regression analysis for the interactive effects of each need satisfaction construct with need importance on motivation, enjoyment, and vitality in the exercise context

Appendix 3

See Table 5.

Table 5 Results of moderated regression analysis for the interactive effects of each need satisfaction and frustration construct with need importance and openness to experience on vitality, life satisfaction, and meaning in the general life context

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Basic psychological needs
  • Motivation
  • Well-being
  • Perceived variety
  • Personality