Crafting happiness from everyday life: Personality, personal projects, basic psychological need satisfaction, and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Feeling competent, related, and autonomous promotes well-being through satisfying basic psychological needs, according to self-determination theory’s basic psychological need satisfaction mini-theory. Personal projects are personally relevant goal-directed activities that take place over an extended period. The quality of life elicited from pursuing personal projects depends on the degree to which projects provide a sense of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. We expected that, when controlling for perfectionistic standards and discrepancies, achievement striving would lead to the pursual of projects that provide a sense of competence, which in turn leads to well-being. We also explored autonomy and relatedness as mediators. Methods: The sample (N = 327) was composed of students and the general adult population who provided information on positive mental health, passion, zest for life, life purpose, personality, basic psychological need satisfaction, and personal projects. We used a cross-sectional survey design and tested hypotheses with twelve serial mediation models. Results: Achievement striving and personal standards were positively associated with competence, which in turn predicted well-being in 12 of 12 indirect effects tested. Achievement striving, personal standards and discrepancies contributed to change in well-being through relatedness or autonomy in 9 of 24 of exploratory indirect effects tested. Discussion: Those oriented toward achievement motivation are likely to feel competent in their pursuits (personal projects), which in turn promotes well-being. Pursuing personal projects that suit one’s personality (i.e., make it more likely to meet basic psychological needs) may be a tool to boost well-being.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".