General Discussion

In line with Gagné (2003), we assumed that satisfaction of the basic needs would tend to lead people to orient towards others, their own needs having been fulfilled, and therefore lead to increased prosocial behaviour. Based on research by Hagger et al. (2006) and Haivas et al. (2013), we sought to investigate whether basic need satisfaction would better predict prosocial behaviour as a single higher-order factor, or as the three separate needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In line with the work of Hagger et al. (2006), the results from this series of studies suggest that, in relation to behavioural outcomes, specifically prosocial behaviour, basic need satisfaction is best modelled as a higher-order factor. Across all three studies, the higher-order factor model had excellent model fit, and there was no evidence that autonomy, competence, or relatedness could predict any unique variance in general helping. In fact, when direct paths were modelled, this resulted in unreliable results, which appeared to be due to suppressor effects. Nevertheless, across all three studies, a significant positive relationship between basic need satisfaction and prosocial behaviour was found.

These results are not easily reconciled with those found by Haivas et al. (2013), who demonstrated significant positive effects of autonomy and competence on

volunteering. The problems encountered when trying to analyse the separate effects of autonomy, relatedness, and competence raise important questions for SDT researchers. SDT strongly asserts that satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential, universal and innate psychological requirements (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b), and that the basic needs form the ‘critical linking pin’ between the social

environment and optimal versus non-optimal outcomes, both in terms of personality and behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2004). The current series of studies suggest that it can be difficult in practice to separate the effects of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in relation to behavioural outcomes. In addition, although a positive relationship between basic need satisfaction and prosocial behaviour was found in all three studies, it is not clear that the relationship between basic need satisfaction and behavioural outcomes is as stable as the theory would suggest. This could be seen most clearly in Study 3 when causality orientations were modelled alongside basic need satisfaction and basic need satisfaction no longer predicted any unique variance in prosocial behaviour.

The results from this series of studies highlight the importance of methodology, and the impact it can have on results. By using latent path modelling, misspecifications in models were revealed that could not be detected if using observed variables. Firstly, structural equation modelling allowed us to rigorously test whether the three separate needs could feasibly predict prosocial behaviour or whether overall basic need satisfaction was a more appropriate predictor. By examining models with a higher- order basic need satisfaction factor, as well as models with three separate needs, the evidence from all three studies suggested that overall basic need satisfaction was the most suitable predictor. Furthermore, latent path modelling demonstrated that modelling the three needs separately resulted in a suppressor effect, the suppressor variable evidently being overall basic need satisfaction. Haivas et al. (2013) used observed variables in their analyses, which allows for the possibility of undetected model misspecification. This may explain why they found autonomy and competence to be significant positive predictors of prosocial behaviour whereas we did not.

Some of the findings did accord with expectations regarding aspirations and causality orientations. Community aspirations did positively predict prosocial

behaviour. This finding is in line with other research that has associated intrinsic aspirations with positive outcomes for well-being (Niemiec et al., 2009), as well as relating community aspirations directly to certain types of prosocial behaviours (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, et al., 2004). Furthermore, impersonal orientation negatively predicted prosocial behaviour as previous research suggested it would. Nevertheless, a number of findings are inconsistent with the predictions of SDT. In Study 2, affiliation aspirations appeared to be an entirely separate construct to community aspirations, and did not significantly predict helping behaviour as

anticipated. In addition, extrinsic aspirations did not have a negative effect on helping behaviour. In study 3, contrary to the findings of Gagné (2003), autonomy orientation did not positively predict helping behaviour, although the autonomy orientation did positively predict, and the impersonal orientation negatively predict, basic need satisfaction as expected. Most saliently, across all three studies satisfaction with each separate need did not individually predict helping behaviour, and overall basic need satisfaction had a small and inconsistent effect on helping behaviour.

There are a number of possible reasons for these results. In terms of aspirations, whilst stronger intrinsic aspirations relative to extrinsic aspirations overall may

positively predict general well-being, it is plausible that within specific domains of behaviour, such as helping, certain aspirations may be more relevant than others. This approach is supported by research exploring exercise behaviours, where specific exercise-related intrinsic aspirations, such as enjoyment and challenge, and extrinsic aspirations, such as appearance and fitness, have been separately investigated in relation to exercise behaviours. Within the domain of exercise, extrinsic aspirations have also been shown to have positive, non-significant, and negative effects on exercise

aspirations may have a negative impact on well-being, even extrinsic aspirations have been shown to support goal attainment (Niemiec et al., 2009), making their effects on actual behaviours less easily predicted by SDT.

Autonomy orientation has been positively related to desirable outcomes in previous research including prosocial behaviour Gagné (2003) and better performance and well-being at work (Baard et al., 2004). However, although each orientation is thought to exist to some extent in individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2004), previous research has not yet tested the concurrent effects of the three causality orientation. This research therefore raises the possibility that within the domain of specific behaviours, the

negative effect of the impersonal causality orientations outweighs the effect of the autonomy and controlled orientations when the effects of all three orientations are tested together. Finally, in relation to the effects of basic need satisfaction on helping

behaviours, whilst in theory it may be possible for one need to be satisfied whilst one or even both of the other needs are not, in reality it may be the case that satisfaction of one need arises in conjunction with satisfaction of one or both of the other needs. This may explain why the effect of each need on helping behaviour could not be tested separately. However, these ideas remain speculative and further research within the domains of specific behaviours will be needed to unpack the reasons why certain predictions made by SDT were not supported.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Basic need satisfaction was measured using the ARC-S scale in this series of studies. The ARC-S scale (L. G. Morgan et al., 2013, i.e., Paper 2) was designed to counter some of the problems identified by Johnston & Finney (2010) with the widely used BNS-G scale (Gagné, 2003) for measurement of basic need satisfaction. Overall

the factor structure of the ARC-S scale was greatly improved over the BNS-G scale, but the subscales remained highly correlated. Recent work by Sheldon and Hilpert (2012) has resulted in the development of the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs (BMPN). This 18-item scale specifies autonomy, competence, and relatedness as three latent constructs and the study demonstrated the improved construct validity and predictive power of the BMPN over the BNS-G scale. Importantly, inter-correlations between the three needs for BMPN measures were between .46-.49. If further studies are carried out using the BMPN to predict prosocial behaviour, and these obtain consistently small inter-need correlations, path analyses may further clarify whether study of the separate effects of autonomy, competence, and relatedness on prosocial behaviour is feasible.

The path models tested in this series of studies were based on theoretical considerations and empirical data (e.g., Gagné, 2003; Haivas et al., 2013), with basic need satisfaction as a predictor of prosocial behaviour. However, given the

correlational nature of these studies, it cannot be conclusively said that basic need satisfaction causes prosocial behaviour. It is possible that performing a prosocial behaviour could in fact increase basic need satisfaction, or perhaps increase satisfaction of individual needs. For example, it is conceivable that carrying out a helpful act could enhance feelings of autonomy (acting out of one’s own volition), competence (having been able to effectively provide help for another), and relatedness (fostering a sense of connection with another person in the act of helping them). However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to answer these questions. Experimental or longitudinal studies would serve to further enhance our understanding of the causal, or possibly reciprocal, relationships between basic need satisfaction and prosocial behaviour.

Overall basic need satisfaction was found to have a small but unstable positive effect on prosocial behaviour. Overall basic need satisfaction was found to positively significantly predict both prosocial behaviour in general and prosocial behaviour within the specific domain of a university setting. When studied in conjunction with

aspirations, basic need satisfaction was found to partially mediate the positive effect of community aspirations on prosocial behaviour. When explored alongside causality orientations, basic need satisfaction was no longer a significant predictor of prosocial behaviour. This suggests that researchers hoping to learn how to increase prosocial behaviour would gain more from further exploration of the effects of aspirations and causality orientations, rather than basic need satisfaction.

Conclusion

Across all three studies, we demonstrated that basic need satisfaction was best modelled as a higher-order factor in relation to the behavioural outcome of general helping. The work of Hagger et al. (2006) supports the use of a higher-order basic need satisfaction factor in relation to other behavioural outcomes, specifically dieting and exercise. Thus, while the three individual needs may be able to explain independent variance in well-being (Reis et al., 2000), we suggest that researchers interested in behavioural outcomes consider including basic need satisfaction as a higher-order factor rather than attempting to investigate the effects of the three separate needs. In

conclusion, we hope that this paper acts as a springboard for thorough investigation and rigorous research into this interesting issue.

Chapter 5: Paper 4 – Towards an Understanding of