What are the three basic organismic needs according to self determination theory?

The conceptualization of needs in self-determination theory is based on two classic traditions in the study of motivation, the Hull (1943) and Murray (1938) traditions. On the one hand, Hull specified a set of innate physiological needs (e.g., food, water, sex) whose deficit activates drive states, and that must be met for the organism to remain physically healthy. On the other hand, Murray referred to psychological instead of physiological needs and he considered needs as acquired instead of innate. Murray defined needs as anything that moves an individual to action, and, therefore, most needs established in his list (e.g., abasement, acquisitiveness, dominance) are not necessary to achieve a healthy development and optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory proposes a set of innate needs consistent with the Hullian tradition, but it focuses at the psychological level according to Murray's approach. However, the function of the needs is quite different based on their organismic-dialectical approach.

According to self-determination theory, basic psychological needs are defined as innate psychological nutriments, the satisfaction of which is essential for the process of continuous psychological growth, integrity, well-being, and optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These needs are organismic and present in all individuals, therefore, they do not represent acquired or learned orientations. The needs are qualitatively different from deficits or defensive motives. The needs are conceptualized as essential for optimal functioning—the means to promote human potential—whereas defensive motives are derived from threats and the thwarting of needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

In addition, the needs are considered universal and present in all cultures and settings (Deci and Ryan, 2000, Sheldon et al., 2001). Need satisfaction is essential for healthy development and well-being and can be achieved by means of a great variety of behaviors that can differ among individuals and cultures. This means that individuals cannot prosper unless they satisfy their needs. Needs persist over the entire lifespan, although their relative importance, their forms of expression, and the pathways to achieve their satisfaction vary throughout lifetime and across cultures (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Deci and Ryan, 1991, Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Ryan and Deci (2000b) in their basic postulates of self-determination theory, establish three basic psychological needs that meet the above-mentioned criteria: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The need for autonomy refers to the desire for choice and volition over one's activities and goals, without externally-referenced pressures and threats, actively engaging in the process of decision-making and attaining a sense of agency in one's environment. The need for competence reflects the desire to experience efficacy, to feel that one is doing things well, and achieving one's goals. The need for relatedness reflects the desire to experience a sense of connectedness with significant others and to maintain good social relations and feel accepted. It is the satisfaction of these three needs that is hypothesized to be related to adaptive motivational orientations toward behaviors, that is, autonomous motivation, and to maintain a sense of optimal functioning. Furthermore, it is the satisfaction of all three needs that is required for optimal functioning and measures of the satisfaction of the needs have indicated a higher-order need satisfaction construct consistent with this complementarity hypothesis (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006).

The concept of basic psychological needs specifies the content of motivation and provides a basis for energizing and directing action. Needs are considered essential to understand what (content) and why (process) one seeks goals, and they are a key concept to interpret the processes of internalization and intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to the theory, satisfaction of basic psychological needs is related to more autonomous forms of motivation with respect to activities and behaviors. Autonomous actions are those that are experienced as self-endorsed and reflect of an individual's genuine sense of self. If psychological needs are satisfied, people value the importance of the activity they are performing, integrate it into their lifestyle, feel that they are the origin of their actions, and experience adaptive outcomes including behavioral persistence, enjoyment, and psychological well-being. However, for the interpretation of this process to be effective, it is necessary to establish a fundamental set of needs that explain a large number of phenomena. As the number of needs increases, the utility of this approach decreases. In fact, one of the reasons why the classic theories of needs were not accepted was that their list of needs was too long and weighty (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). It is extremely important for each candidate need to reflect a basic, fundamental need that extends to the explanation of a large number of behavioral phenomena (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

Taking this into account, we propose novelty as a candidate basic psychological need within self-determination theory. Drawing from the tenets of the theory, we aim to identify the conceptual basis for the need for novelty, explaining its relation with the process of internalization, intrinsic motivation, and well-being. In fact, in the classic studies of Deci and Ryan, novelty is frequently mentioned as an important element of human motivation. Deci and Ryan (2000) define intrinsic motivation as “active engagement with tasks that people find interesting and that, in turn, promote growth. Such activities are characterized by novelty, or what Berlyne (1971) called ‘collative stimulus properties’, and by optimal challenge” (p. 233). Ryan and Deci (2000b) consider that intrinsic motivation is “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn” (p. 70), and Deci and Ryan (1991) state that intrinsic motivation “leads people to encounter new challenges that are optimal for their self-development and that can be integrated as development proceeds naturally” (p. 244). Novelty and perceived competence, therefore, represent two essential aspects of intrinsic motivation derived from original conceptualizations of the construct in self-determination theory. It is therefore surprising that competence has been conceived as a basic psychological need, the object of study of many studies, while novelty has not received comparable attention.

The conceptual case for novelty seeking as an innate and universal need is based on the original operationalization of self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan (1985) contend that children are active, inquisitive, and curious from birth and are constantly in need of stimulation. The key motivational state of intrinsic motivation characterizes the natural inclination toward spontaneous interest and exploration, assimilation, and mastery as an essential experience necessary for cognitive and social development and optimal functioning (Ryan, 1995, Ryan and Deci, 2000b). Moreover, self-determination theory suggests that humans have innate propensities to commit to interesting activities (novelty), practice capacities (competence), pursue relations with others in social groups (relatedness), and integrate personal and intrapsychic experiences in relative unity (autonomy) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Individuals are therefore compelled to seek out new experiences, a need that complements the desire to experience effectance and choice, mastery, and connectedness with others (Deci & Ryan, 1991).

The integration of new experiences is related to a tendency toward negentropy, a term that represents a more elaborated organization of the system which is central to the development of a sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Systems that are not renewed tend to deplete, disappear and become extinct, and, therefore, for humans to survive they need continuous innovation and evolution in their developmental process. Since prehistory, humans have developed new objects, inventions, activities, ideas, and projects as a part of their natural evolution. Life without the pursuit of novelty would mean individuals would not engage in exploratory pursuits to understand the self and their environment, to search for meaning, and for personal growth (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). Although this need to innovate is related to the needs for competence and autonomy, it seems a source of motivation in its own. In this line, novelty would have an adaptive function being important for the development of phylogenetic and ontogenetic adaptive strategies. Children seek new experiences to stimulate their developing brains; adolescents seek novelty to extend their horizons and to develop their social identities; and in adults novelty is related to the development of the self-actualized individual, cognitive flexibility and better social relationships, fundamental aspects for this longest stage of psychosocial growth (see Reio & Choi, 2004).

Novelty is needed in all the life contexts, such as education, work, leisure, physical activity or interpersonal relationships. For example, students and exercisers need to alternate familiar and new activities in an optimal challenge (balance between competence and novelty) to improve their motivation, satisfaction, well-being and performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Sylvester et al., 2016). Furthermore, if people do not seek novel activities within the tasks they do in the workplace or in leisure time, they will likely experience boredom and maladaptive outcomes like low self-worth, negative affect, low life satisfaction and psychological well-being. Research has shown that even individuals engaged in the most mundane and routine of tasks in the workplace seek novel strategies to maintain interest (Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992). The need for novelty is also related to experience more adaptive social outcomes. When individuals experience novel activities, people seek to share it with others and this process increases their intrinsic motivation and relatedness (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). This suggests that novelty may co-exist and complement the existing needs within self-determination theory and that satisfaction of the need for novelty in parallel with satisfaction of other needs will lead to adaptive outcomes and optimal functioning.

Other approaches to the study of novelty and intrinsic motivation exist in the literature that share certain aspects with the conceptualization of novelty within self-determination theory, although from different viewpoints and foci.

The purpose of this research is to introduce novelty as basic psychological need parallel with the three existing needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness proposed in self-determination theory. Based on our review of the literature, novelty seems to be an innate need which is present in all cultures and stages of development, the satisfaction of which contributes to increased intrinsic motivation and well-being, and is related to adaptive behavioral outcomes and optimal functioning. Although the exploratory behavior may vary in intensity throughout the life span, it is omnipresent in daily human experience (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004). It seems, therefore, to meet the criteria established by Deci and Ryan (2000) of a basic psychological need. In fact, original studies on intrinsic motivation on which self-determination theory is based make reference to novelty as an essential element of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975, Deci and Ryan, 1985, Deci and Ryan, 1991, Deci and Ryan, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2000b). Deci and Ryan (1985) seem to consider that novelty is implicit in existing need sets. For example, novelty considered subsumed by autonomy in that autonomous activities tend also to have a sensational or unique component and by competence in that experiencing challenge requires one to extend one's skills by trying something new. From this perspective, people seek to practice newly acquired skills, but when the skills cease to be novel, their satisfaction decreases. This view would limit novelty to being a construct intimately linked to autonomy and competence. It is important, therefore, to identify whether novelty can function in its own right largely independent of autonomy and competence.

Recent approaches to the study of novelty from other perspectives, using different terminology (interest, curiosity, sensation seeking, perceived variety), also allude to the importance of novelty for human motivation. These approaches clearly consider novelty as different to competence. Novelty would be more linked to interest, reflecting a perceptual and diversive level (general search for new stimuli), whereas competence would be more linked to enjoyment and a more epistemic and specific view (attempting to acquire some particular knowledge) (Loewenstein, 1994, Silvia, 2006). Although these constructs and their underpinning approaches are different to that proposed by self-determination theory, their conceptualization of novelty is entirely consistent with the basic principles of self-determination theory. In this sense, the study of novelty is topical and timely; however, the different approaches have quantified the intensity with which people seek novelty instead of the people's level of satisfaction of this need. Only the study of Sylvester et al. (2014) on perceived variety has measured level of satisfaction, but it should also be taken into account that their construct includes alternating familiar experiences, in addition to novel experiences. Despite of the widespread acknowledgment of the importance of novelty in numerous life domains including education, work, and interpersonal relations, there has been a relative dearth in research examining the contribution of novelty in these domains and the role of the need for novelty in predicting motivation and behavior in these domains is in need of further investigation (Loewenstein, 1994).

Theoretical and empirical accounts of self-determination theory focused exclusively on three needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness as the basic and fundamental needs driving human motivation and have not tended to consider alternatives (Sheldon, 2011). Sheldon et al. (2001) carried out three studies to test the construct and cross-cultural validity of 10 candidate psychological needs. The results showed that the three basic psychological needs proposed in self-determination theory with self-esteem were associated to event-related affect and, therefore, sat at the apex of a ‘basic’ needs hierarchy. However, this research did not consider novelty as a candidate need. We plan to continue advancement in the identification of basic psychological needs within self-determination theory by proposing novelty as a candidate basic psychological need. In order to provide empirical support for this proposal, we plan to develop a measure of the satisfaction of the need for novelty from first principles. In addition, we aim to explore relations of our measure of novelty need satisfaction with the existing needs from self-determination theory and like constructs in tests of construct, discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity.

We also planned to test the validity of the satisfaction of the need for novelty with constructs operating at the global and contextual levels of generality, consistent with Vallerand's (1997) hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. According to Vallerand's model, global level represents a general state of motivation toward life while the contextual level refers to the motivation developed in specific spheres of the human activity (contexts). Research has shown that education, work, leisure (of which physical activity is a significant part), and interpersonal relationships are the most important contexts for humans (Biddle et al., 2007, Vallerand, 1997). The Study 1 was conducted at a global level of generality while the Study 2 was carried out at a physical education (PE) context. We decided to analyze this context because it represents an education context with high transference to the leisure context of physical activity (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2016) and, therefore, was highly representative of this level of the hierarchy.

In Study 1 we explored the psychometric properties of the measure of satisfaction of the need for novelty and its discriminant and convergent validity with measures of satisfaction of the other three basic psychological needs from self-determination theory. In addition, we tested the predictive validity of the satisfaction of need for novelty in predicting life satisfaction as an indicator of well-being independent of satisfaction of the other three needs. Study 2 provided a replication of the construct validity of the novelty need satisfaction measure at the contextual level with adolescents in PE classes. Relations between satisfaction of the need for novelty and the other three needs and the different forms of motivation from self-determination theory were tested.

We expected that satisfaction of the need for novelty would be positively related to the satisfaction of other needs from self-determination theory with medium effect sizes. We also predicted positive, medium-sized effects of the novelty measure on life satisfaction and autonomous forms of motivation. We expected our findings to provide preliminary evidence for the validity of the satisfaction of the need for novelty importance as a predictor of well-being and adaptive forms of motivation from self-determination theory.