Well-being: Does it hang in the balance of basic psychological need satisfaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deci and Ryan (2008) contend that the fulfillment of the psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness are directly associated with well-being. Seminal work by Sheldon and Niemiec (2006) demonstrated that "balanced" fulfillment across the psychological needs central to Deci and Ryan's arguments predicted variance in well-being beyond the contributions of each individual psychological need. The purpose of this investigation was to test the proposition that "balanced" fulfillment as contextualized to health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) would be associated with a greater endorsement of well-being above and beyond that of the three psychological needs taken together. Employing non-probability based sampling, female undergraduate students (N = 190) completed a self-report instrument within a cross-sectional design. Basic psychological need fulfillment was associated with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the context of HEPA (R2adj = 0.16). Balanced psychological need fulfillment contributed, at best, negligibly (R2adj ranged from 0. 00 - 0.03) to well-being indices beyond individual contributions. Interestingly, perceptions of being volitional and self-directed consistent with perceptions of autonomy in HEPA contexts were non-significant (p > .05) with the inclusion of "balanced" fulfillment in the regression analyses. This study illustrates that the "balanced" fulfillment of psychological needs may not be a central mechanism contributing to well-being within the context of HEPA, yet further inquiry appears justified to corroborate this issue.Acknowledgments: Funding support was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".