CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 335Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionCultural Differences and Values

Need Satisfaction and Well-Being: Testing Self-Determination Theory in Eight Cultures

Church, A. Timothy, Katigbak, Marcia S., Locke, Kenneth D., Zhang, Hengsheng, Shen, Jiliang, de Jesús Vargas-Flores, José, Ibáñez-Reyes, Joselina, Tanaka-Matsumi, Junko +7 more·2013·Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
DOI 10.1177/0022022112466590
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a universal requirement for psychological well-being. We tested this hypothesis with college students in the United States, Australia, Mexico, Venezuela, the Philippines, Malaysia, China, and Japan. Participants rated the extent to which these needs, plus needs for self-actualization and pleasure-stimulation, were satisfied in various roles and reported their general hedonic (i.e., positive and negative affect) and eudaimonic (e.g., meaning in life, personal growth) well-being. Asian participants averaged lower than non-Asian participants in perceived satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and self-actualization needs and in most aspects of eudaimonic well-being, and these differences were partially accounted for by differences in dialecticism and independent self-construals. Nonetheless, perceived need satisfaction predicted overall well-being to a similar degree in all cultures and in most cultures provided incremental prediction beyond the Big Five traits. Perceived imbalance in the satisfaction of different needs also modestly predicted well-being, particularly negative affect. The study extended support for the universal importance of SDT need satisfaction to several new cultures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022022112466590

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chen et al. (2015a) reported that their need-based model held across different countries, having provided evidence for the measurement equivalence of the BPNSNF scale across Chinese, Belgian, American, and Peruvian university students.

    “For instance, having provided evidence for the measurement equivalence of the BPNSNF scale across Chinese, Belgian, American, and Peruvian university students, Chen et al. (2015a) reported that their need-based model held across different countries (see also Church et al. 2013;Sheldon et al. 2011;Taylor and Lonsdale 2010).”

    From Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions (2020) · cites this paper as Church et al. 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Zhang, H., Shen, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Curtis, G. J., Cabrera, H. F., Mastor, K. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ortiz, F. A., Simon, J.-Y. R., & Ching, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Washington State University (US)
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • National Autonomous University of Mexico, Iztacala, Mexico City, Mexico
  • Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya-City, Hyogoken, Japan
  • Murdoch University (AU)
  • University of Santo Tomas (PH)
  • National University of Malaysia (MY)
  • Gonzaga University (US)
  • Universidad Central de Venezuela (VE)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-11-08
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
507-534
ISSN
  • 0022-0221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5422
DOI
10.1177/0022022112466590
OpenAlex
W2095937489
Cited by
335
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
17.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
self-determination theory, need satisfaction, psychological well-being, autonomy, competence, relatedness, self-realization, eudaimonic well-being, hedonic well-being, cross-cultural comparison, Asian participants, dialecticism, independent self-construal, Big Five personality traits, negative affect, meaning in life, personal growth

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review