Source
Sheldon, Elliot, Kim and Kasser (2001), LIT-1966, pp. 328–337; read in NOTE-1502.
What was actually shown
Salience. Self-esteem was first or tied first in mean salience in the three US samples (4.08, 3.65, 3.97) and second in South Korea (3.23, after relatedness 3.65) (Tables 2, 4, 6).
Unique prediction of affect balance, all ten candidates entered:
- Study 1 (last month, N = 315): self-esteem .28, autonomy .17, competence .12, relatedness .12, money–luxury −.17.
- Study 2 US (last week, N = 152): autonomy .29, competence .25, relatedness .21; self-esteem not significant.
- Study 2 Korea (N = 200): autonomy .26, self-esteem .23, security .25, relatedness .20, money–luxury −.22; competence .10, ns.
- Study 3 (last semester, N = 233): self-esteem .38, autonomy .17, relatedness .12 (marginal), competence .00, money–luxury −.14.
Self-esteem could have been salient but redundant with the three SDT needs once they were controlled; in Studies 1 and 3 it was the largest unique predictor.
The authors’ reading (p. 336): SDT “does not have a way to account for these results, except perhaps to consider self-esteem as a well-being outcome rather than a predictor”, which “might be imprudent”; “there may be four fundamental psychological needs, not three: autonomy, competence, relatedness, and self-esteem.”
What this does not say
- That self-esteem is a basic need. Both criteria are self-reports about one recalled event, and the self-esteem items (“Quite satisfied with who I am”) are close to the affect they predict.
- That SDT’s later reply is wrong. The data cannot distinguish a need from an outcome of the other needs; the authors say so.
- That competence is unimportant. It carried the unique variance in unsatisfying events (Study 3), which the authors read as a deficiency role.
- Anything beyond students in two countries.