What do you (think you) need? Perceived vs. experienced effects of need fulfillment on well-being

Neubauer, Andreas; Lerche, Veronika; Koehler, Friederike; Voß, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103938

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates that the effects of social inclusion and social exclusion may be of different size for different individuals. Similar findings have been observed in other intensive longitudinal daily life studies (Neubauer, Lerche, Koehler, & Voss, 2020; Schmidt, Neubauer, Dirk, & Schmiedek, 2020), yet the origins and implications of these inter‐individual differences remain largely unexplored to date. Future research on this heterogeneity in within‐person effects is clearly needed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Within‐person effects of inclusion and exclusion on well‐being in daily life

Bernstein

Neubauer

Benfield

et al. 2021

Personal Relationships

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether exclusion hurts or inclusion feels good is debated within social psychology, and research designs often compare people who are excluded from those who are included. Here, we examined how participants differ when they are excluded or included relative to when they are not engaging in social interactions. Participants completed an ecological momentary assessment study (7 days, six measures a day). Participants indicated if they were having a social interaction, whether the interaction was inclusionary or exclusionary, and their mood and basic needs. We found that when people were excluded, relative to no interaction, they had lower basic needs and worsened mood; the reverse was true during inclusion episodes. We also found that the within‐person effect of exclusion was larger than the within‐person effect of inclusion and that exclusion experiences were relatively uncommon (≈10% of all reported social interactions). Future research and the importance of examining within‐person effects are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Within‐person effects of inclusion and exclusion on well‐being in daily life

Bernstein

Neubauer

Benfield

et al. 2021

Personal Relationships

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many areas of inquiry focus on individual differences in contingencies. For instance, research on stress reactivity has examined individual differences in affective reactivity towards stressors (e.g., Hisler et al, 2020;Kaurin et al, 2021;Kroencke et al, 2020;O'Neill et al, 2004); research on motivation has examined individual differences in the associations between need satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Neubauer et al, 2018Neubauer et al, , 2020b; and work on the association between Extraversion and well-being has examined the social reactivity hypothesis (Srivastava et al, 2008;Kroencke et al, 2022). Moreover, research on contingencies has been conducted in various applied areas of psychology.…”

Section: Previous Empirical Work On Contingenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Kuper¹,

Breil²,

Horstmann³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic – state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and socio-demographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies.

show abstract

“…Many areas of inquiry focus on individual differences in contingencies. For instance, research on stress reactivity has examined individual differences in affective reactivity towards stressors (e.g., Hisler et al, 2020; Kaurin et al, 2021; Kroencke et al, 2020; O’Neill et al, 2004); research on motivation has examined individual differences in the associations between need satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Neubauer et al, 2018; Neubauer, Lerche, et al, 2020); and work on the association between Extraversion and well-being has examined the social reactivity hypothesis (Kroencke et al, 2022; Srivastava et al, 2008). Moreover, research on contingencies has been conducted in various applied areas of psychology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

Kuper¹,

Breil²,

Horstmann³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic-state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and sociodemographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies.

show abstract

What do you (think you) need? Perceived vs. experienced effects of need fulfillment on well-being

Cited by 6 publications

References 48 publications

Within‐person effects of inclusion and exclusion on well‐being in daily life

Within‐person effects of inclusion and exclusion on well‐being in daily life

Individual Differences in Contingencies Between Situation Characteristics and Personality States

Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About