Predicting the brighter and darker sides of interpersonal relationships: Does psychological need thwarting matter?

Abstract

Recent studies have indicated that assessments of need thwarting better predict diminished functioning and ill-being compared to low need satisfaction, which better predict optimal functioning and well-being. In this study we aimed to further explore the important theoretical distinction between psychological need thwarting and need satisfaction in the domain of interpersonal relationships. We examined whether the distinction between need satisfaction and thwarting is due to method effects resulting from positive and negative item wording, however, multi-trait multi-method analyses indicated no substantial method effects.Further, we showed that a lack of need satisfaction (i.e., need dissatisfaction) is not equivalent to experiences of need thwarting. In fact, need thwarting better predicted compromised relational functioning compared to need dissatisfaction. Need satisfaction was a stronger predictor of interpersonal competence compared to need thwarting and need dissatisfaction. The current findings underline the importance of assessing need thwarting when examining compromised functioning in interpersonal relationships.

Antecedents and consequences of parental psychological control and autonomy support: The role of psychological basic needs

“…We administered the Italian translation of the Psychological need thwarting scale and Psychological need satisfaction scale used by Costa, Ntoumanis et al (2015). In the present study the internal consistency was sufficient (Table 1).…”

“…Focusing on the sport context, Matosic, Ntoumanis, and Quested (2016) reviewed previous studies identifying three broad categories (contextual factors, perceptions of others' behaviors and motivation, and personal factors) of several potential antecedents of coaches' interpersonal style suggesting that psychologically basic needs could be relevant personal factors antecedents of autonomy support and control. Parents who experienced high levels of need satisfaction in their lives may be more likely to express high levels of autonomy support because they can initiate interactions with their children (autonomy), to be skilful in disclosing information to others (competence), and to offer emotional support (relatedness; Costa, Ntoumanis, et al, 2015). Furthermore, when parents' needs are satisfied they may be more likely to engage in adaptive behaviours (e.g., autonomy support) which focus on maximising positive psychological experiences and outcomes.…”

The Mediational Role of Psychological Basic Needs in the Relation Between Conception of God and Psychological Outcomes

“…In line with conclusions from previous studies on SDT (Bartholomew et al 2011a, b;Vansteenkiste and Ryan 2013), these findings support the argument that psychological need frustration is not the same as low need satisfaction. At the same time, context behaviours that are perceived as thwarting basic needs cannot be equated with behaviours that are perceived as providing low levels of support for basic psychological needs (Costa et al 2014b;Vansteenkiste and Ryan 2013). Consistent with this reasoning, we found that the concept of controlling God (to whom need-thwarting behaviour is attributed) has a more pronounced association with need frustration and depression (lack of well-being and psychopathology) than an absence or low level of need satisfaction; similarly, the concept of autonomy-supporting God (to whom need-support behaviours are attributed) has a more pronounced association with need satisfaction and vitality (well-being) than with an absence of need frustration.…”

“…parent-child, teacher-student, coach-athlete, and egalitarian relationships characterised by mutuality, e.g. close friendships and romantic partnerships (Bartholomew et al 2011a;Costa et al 2014b;Deci et al 2006). Soenens et al (2012) applied this theoretical work to representations of God and hypothesised that religious people can conceive God's interpersonal style as either relatively autonomy-supporting or relatively controlling.…”

“…Research in sports and exercise psychology has shown that although autonomy-supporting and controlling coaching styles are negatively correlated, they are not perfectly opposite (Bartholomew et al 2011a). More importantly, it has been suggested that processes of need thwarting and need support may predict different outcomes, such that need thwarting would be particularly predictive of ill-being and psychopathology and that need support would be particularly predictive of well-being and positive developmental outcomes (Bartholomew et al 2011a;Costa et al 2014b;Vansteenkiste and Ryan 2013).…”