<< Back to page 1

esteem of others does not appear to have done so. In SDT, it is contended that status is not an intrinsic need but is indeed powerful psychologically because its loss threatens feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

The need for meaning is widely supported. Victor Frankl, Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, observed in 1946 that humans are characterised by an innate drive to find meaning and significance in their lives, and that failure to achieve meaning results in psychological distress.24 This has been substantiated by much research, less meaning in life being associated with greater need for therapy,25 depression and anxiety,26 and suicidal ideation and substance abuse.27 SDT originators Richard Ryan and Edward Deci agree that meaning is important but argue that it is achieved through the movement towards greater autonomy. They also propose that, when people reflect upon aspects of life that convey meaning, they are often focused upon experiences of relatedness, competence, or autonomy.

It can be seen, then, that the nine needs of the human givens model can be viewed as nesting within the more 'fundamental' factors, in SDT terms, of autonomy, competence and relatedness, or as a manifestation of those factors.

The Emotional Needs Scale

My research took the Emotional Needs Audit as the starting point for the preliminary development and testing of the nine needs model as the basis for a valid and reliable scale. It tested the validity of the human givensí need constructs as a measure of psychological health by verifying them against the more theoretically driven SDT model, which similarly seeks to offer a complete model of psychological need. The measure of needs fulfilment should also be predictive of stress, which offered a further test of validity.

The first task was to generate an emotional needs scale (ENS), derived from the ENA. I created at least five different measures of each emotional need, so as to ascertain whether a general measure of each need, as used in the ENA, or measures of a specific aspect of each need would be more reliable. For example, in looking at emotional connection to others, the general measure item, based on the one used in the ENA, was, "In the last month how often have you felt an emotional connection to others?" The specific-item versions were, "In the last month how often have you felt totally accepted for who you are by another person?"; "In the last month how often have you had physical contact?"; "In the last month how often have you felt you could confide in another person?"; and "In the last month how often have you felt a strong connection with friends?"

The intention was that each item should be applicable to male and female adults of all ages and any occupation. A total of 59 items were generated, including seven 'reverse scored' questions (for instance, "In the last month how often have you felt deprived of physical contact?"; "In the last month how often has your privacy been intruded upon") where a low rather than a high score is more indicative of psychological health. The pilot study tested the validity of the ENS as a predictor of stress in relation to the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), which asks questions such as "In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?": "In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way?" For this reason, the question phrasing and scoring (never, almost never, sometimes, fairly often, very often) were made consistent with that used in the PSS. In particular, the PSS request for respondents to rate their experiences over the last month was perceived to be appropriate for adoption in the ENS, as this question frame could help prevent responses of participants (40 students at the University of Gloucester, chosen on the basis of availability and readiness to participate) from being distorted by prominent recent experiences that might not be reflective of their general situation.

As a result of the pilot testing, the items that were weakly correlated with individualsí total score were removed from the scale. For example, the question on security, which asked, "In the last month how often have you felt secure in all major aspects of your life?" was retained, rather than the one which asked "In the last month have you felt safe in your a) home b) work environment c) local area?" The latter showed substantially lower item-total correlations, suggesting that, for the sample population taking the test, environmental security was not a big issue and that other aspects of security, encompassed by a more general question, might be more pertinent. In a succinct scale, this therefore appeared to be a more valuable measure than a more tightly defined one.

The retained item on attention needs focuses just on received attention rather than given and received attention, as received attention had higher inter-item relatedness than given attention and does not suffer from being a double-barrelled question. The retained item on privacy which asked, "In the last month how often have you had the time for reflection?" showed much higher inter-item correlations than the more general "In the last month how often have you been able to obtain privacy when you needed to?" The retained item on meaning ("In the last month how often have you felt that life is meaningful?") was itself more meaningful to people than the question based on the one that appears in the ENA ("In the last month, how often have you been mentally or physically stretched in ways that give you a sense that life is meaningful?").

In some categories of needs, more than one item was sufficiently distinct and highly correlated enough to warrant inclusion in the scale. I, therefore, decided that the final ENS (see Final Emotional Needs Scale) should comprise 14 items chosen not onlybecause they correlated strongly with other items but because of the practical usefulness of the information that they would reveal. The ENS retained four items directly from the ENA, while the remaining items represent significant reworking of ENA questions or newly generated items.

Testing the ENS

Ninety-three undergraduate psychology students at the University of Gloucestershire, who were approached at the end of lectures, agreed to participate in the next part of the study. Most were female, which is in line with the current 80:20 ratio of female-to-male psychology undergraduates but not, of course, reflected in the general population. The students were of mixed nationalities and ethnicities. Questionnaires from eight were not completed fully, so had to be discarded.

The participants completed three scales: the ENS (Emotional Needs Scale); the BNSGS (Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale, which is an SDT questionnaire, assessing the extent of satisfaction of three basic intrinsic needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness); and the PSS (Perceived Stress Scale).

There are no reverse scored items in the final ENS but there are several in both of the other scales. The BNSGS contains 21 items such as "I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life" (self-determination); "I really like the people I interact with" (relatedness); and "Often, I do not feel very competent" (competence). The PSS is a 14-item scale measuring the degree to which respondents experience their life as being unpredictable, uncontrollable and overloading, through questions such as "In the last month, how often have you been able to control the way you spend your time?", as well as asking directly about current levels of experienced stress ("In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and 'stressed'?"). Participants had five choices for scaling their answers in the ENS and PSS, from 'never' to 'very often'. In the BNSGS, they had seven choices, from 'not at all true' through to 'very true'. The order in which the three scales were presented to individuals was rotated, to prevent order having any effect on responses.

Findings

Analysis using standard tests revealed that the ENS has high reliability as a scale, comparable with that of the BNSGS. Importantly, this had been accomplished without having to sacrifice the potential usefulness of the scale as a diagnostic tool by 'reducing down'. The ENS was also found to be a valid measure of psychological need fulfilment and offers diagnostic information on a broader range of needs than the BNSGS. Whilst not all of the needs can be defined as basic needs, and it has been acknowledged by the originators of the human givens approach that not all the needs are equally important, the nine needs had sound theoretical basis for inclusion and relate to the basic needs. (For instance, while status has received little current research interest as a psychological need, responses to questions about it suggested that it had substantial diagnostic value, even if it is not considered a basic need.) As such, the ENS provides a more complete yet succinct measure of psychological need fulfilment than the BNSGS.

Low scores on both need fulfilment scales were also predictive of higher perceived stress. Indeed, results from the ENS showed that 48 per cent of the variation between individualsí perceived stress levels can be predicted from how well their psychological needs are met. (Other factors associated with stress such as life stressors, daily hassles, biological components such as a greater innate tendency to anxiety, and effective use of cognitive strategies would not be identified by the ENS.) This is a substantial proportion to be able to predict — Sheldon Cohen and colleagues, who developed the PSS, found that self-rated life event scores predicted just nine per cent of perceived stress.10 This finding strongly supports psychological needs theoristsí hypothesis that unmet needs result in stress.

The ENS emerged as a marginally stronger predictor of stress than the BNSGS, supporting the validity of the human givens measures of psychological needs. Combining the ENS with the BNSGS yielded very little extra predictive power.

The results clearly suggest that measuring the additional needs proposed in the human givens method does not compromise the reliability or predictive validity of a psycho- logical needs scale and may have the potential to enhance the predictive potential of needs measures, at least in regard to perceived stress.

It would be very instructive to test the ENS against anxiety28 and depression scales,29 to confirm the validity of the ENS as a measure of psychological need fulfilment and help identify which emotions map on to the drives for different needs. For instance, a lack of sense of security might produce anxiety and a lack of meaning might be associated with depression or passivity. This could help people to recognise the informational significance of emotions and provide a potent means for connecting them with the essential nutriments that they require.30

As it stands now, the ENS could readily be applied to undergraduate intakes to assess the adequacy of their psychological need fulfilment. This could be a valuable exercise, as students are commonly away from their traditional social supports for the first time, and some cope better than others. Findings could be used to direct additional support to spec- ific individuals found to be struggling and might well assist in reducing drop-out rates.

The ENS should offer an improvement on the ENA for use as a psychological need fulfilment scale and might, therefore, provide an enhanced effective basis for semi-structured or informal interviews, when carried out by teachers, GPs or other health professionals, outside of psychotherapy sessions, where there is little time for discussion of the needs.

My hope is that models of psychological need fulfilment will continue to attract the growing interest that I believe they deserve. Specifically, the refining and development of the Emotional Needs Audit into reliable and validated scales, such as the ENS, offers the possibility of developing measures that are more diagnostic of wellbeing than those currently used. This approach has the advantage that the information gathered not only gives a reliable indication of wellbeing but also readily suggests appropriate psychosocial interventions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Improvements that may warrant testing

ENS uses a five-point scale for respondents’ answers whereas the BNSGS uses a seven-point scale. Research has shown that scales with seven response options are more reliable,31 as people are usually less likely to go for either of the extremes (1 or 5/7) and so having more options increases the sensitivity of the measure. 

The ENS suffers from a lack of negatively phrased (reverse-scored) items, leading to the possibility that respondents might not think as clearly about their responses as they would if there were a mix of positive and negative items. 

Some questions on the ENS scale might benefit from further revision. For instance, ENS item two (“In the last month how often have you felt that you have received enough attention?”) might be considered poorly defined in that insensitive attention can conflict with autonomy. However, it is probable that most people would answer the question in terms of attention that they perceived as positive in its effect. Also, in item seven (“In the last month how often have you interacted with people from your wider community?”), it is not clear what constitutes the wider community.  

The ENS has been validated only as a written self-report measure. Academic rigour would require it to be re-tested for validity as a verbally administered measure (ie if read out to the respondent). 

To use it with children, substantial reworking, item rewording and retesting would be necessary.  As, in its current form, the ENS is a general measure of psychological need fulfilment for adults, it would also require adaptation and retesting to produce versions suitable to use in specific environments, such as work or education. It is not, of course, necessary for an individual to get all needs met in one place, such as the workplace or school, so such adaptations would be more relevant to assessing the suitability of specific work or educational environments for those using them. 

To be used as an aid for developing social policy, many of the items would have to be deconstructed and defined in terms of tangible measures for the scale to have applications beyond a general 'barometer'’ of wellbeing. It is particularly important that the scale should be validated cross-culturally given that the human givens model posits psychological needs to be innate. It should also be noted that, as testing of the scale was restricted to undergraduate psychology students and females were over represented, the results do not necessarily extend to other populations.

In its present form, the ENS is less useful for many research purposes than the BNSGS as it does not contain a subscale for each individual need. This might be a worthwhile addition. 

<< Back to page 1

References

1 Griffin, J and Tyrrell, I (2003). Human Givens: A new approach to emotional health and clear thinking. HG Publishing, East Sussex.
2 McDougall, W (1908). Introduction to social psychology. Methuen, London. Cited in Sheldon, K M, Elliot, A J, Kim, Y, and Kasser, T (2001). What’s satisfying about satisfying events? Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–39.
3 Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Hogarth, London. 
4 Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New York. 
5 Murray, H (1938). Explorations in Personality. Oxford University Press, New York.  6 Deci, E L and Ryan, R M (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 227–68.
7 Deci, E L, Koestner, R, and Ryan, R (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–68.
8 Self-determination theory: an approach to human motivation and personality. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/theory.html
9 Tyrrell, I (2005). Tuning into our natural endowment: the human givens. Journal of Holistic Healthcare, 2, 4, 27–30. 
10 Sheldon, K M, Elliot, A J, Kim, Y and Kasser, T (2001). What’s satisfying about satisfying events? Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–39.
11 Cohen, S, Kamarck, T and Mermelstein, R (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 4, 8–96.
12 Andrews, W (2007). Practice Research Network document. The Human Givens Foundation.
13 Griffin, J and Tyrrell, I (2007). An Idea in Practice. HG Publishing, East Sussex.14 www.enaproject.org
15 Baard, P P, Deci, E L and Ryan, R M (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045–68.
16 Ilardi, B C, Leone, D, Kasser, R, and Ryan, R M (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–805.
17 Williams, G C, McGregor, H A, Zeldman, A, Freedman, Z R and Deci, E L (2004). Testing a self-determination theory process model for promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Health Psychology, 23, 58–66.
18 Kasser, V M and Ryan, R M (1999). The relation of psycho-logical needs for autonomy and relatedness to health, vitality, wellbeing and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 935–54.
19 Reis, H T, Sheldon, K M, Gable, S L, Roscoe, R and Ryan, R M (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–35.
20 Pedersen, D (1996). A factorial comparison of privacy questionnaires. Social Behavior and Personality, 24, 3, 249–62.
21 DeVries, B, van der Meij, H and Lazonder, A W(2008). Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 3, 649–65.
22 Davies, P, Forman, E, Rasi, J and Stevens, K (2002). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental relationship: the Security in the Interparental Subsystem Scales. Child Development, 73, 2, 544–62.
23 Andersen, S, Chen, S and Carter, C (2000). Fundamental human needs: making social cognition relevant. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 269–75.
24 Frankl, V E (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Washington Square Press, New York.
25 Battista, J and Almond, R (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–27. 
26 Debats, D L, van der Lubbe, P M and Wezeman, F R A (1993). On the psychometric properties of the Life Regard Index (LRI): a measure of meaningful life. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 337–45. 
27 Harlow, L L, Newcomb, M D and Bentler, P M (1986). Depression, self-derogation, substance use, and suicide ideation: lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 5–21. 
28 Lowe, P (2007). Assessment of the psychometric characteristics of the adult manifest anxiety scale-adult version (AMAS-A) scores with adults. Individual Differences Research, 5, 2, 86–105.
29 Zung, W K (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 63–70.
30 Ryan, R and Deci, E (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 4, 319–38.
31 DeCoster, J (2005). Scale Construction Notes. [online]. Available from www.stat-help.com/notes.html

© Human Givens Publishing Limited and Brett Culham (2008)

This article first appeared in Volume 15, No, 3 (2008) of the Human Givens journal.

Brett Culham is a human givens therapist† and conducted this research for his psychology degree dissertation. He has worked in private practice for four years and has recently been recruited to work within the NHS as a psychological therapist, helping to deliver the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme.

> More information on the human givens approach can be found in the following books both by Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell

Dreaming Reality: How dreaming keeps us sane or can drive us mad

Human Givens: A new approach to emotional health and clear thinking

Return to top

> More information on the human givens approach can be found in the following books both by Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell

Dreaming Reality: How dreaming keeps us sane or can drive us mad

Human Givens: A new approach to emotional health and clear thinking

Return to top

Return to top