Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Full Length Article

Changes in within- and between-person associations between basic

psychological need satisfaction and well-being after retirement
Georg Henning a,⇑, Pär Bjälkebring a,b, Andreas Stenling a,c,d, Valgeir Thorvaldsson a, Boo Johansson a,
Magnus Lindwall a
a
Department of Psychology & AgeCap, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
b
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, OH, USA
c
Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Sweden
d
Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness is associated
Received 1 October 2018 with higher well-being. However, little is known about change or stability in this association over the life
Revised 10 March 2019 span. We therefore investigated changes in the association between well-being and basic psychological
Accepted 11 March 2019
need satisfaction in the retirement transition. Data was drawn from four waves of the Health, Aging,
Available online 12 March 2019
and Retirement Transitions in Sweden (HEARTS) study (N = 5,074, M (age) = 63.16; 53.61% female).
Multi-level models were conducted and the analyses revealed evidence for continuity as well as system-
Keywords:
atic changes in within- and between-person associations across the retirement transition. Our findings
Basic psychological needs
Retirement adjustment
demonstrate the benefits of applying a longitudinal design and a life span perspective on basic psycho-
Self-determination theory logical need satisfaction.
Subjective well-being Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
1.1. The crucial importance of basic psychological need satisfaction for
human well-being
What do people need for their well-being? This question has a
long research tradition. Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT),
a sub-theory within self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci,
2017), offers a straightforward answer to it: Satisfaction of the
three basic psychological needs competence, autonomy, and relat-
edness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Competence refers to feelings of mas-
tery and effectiveness (cf. White, 1959). Autonomy involves
feelings of volition, congruence, choice, and internal control – the
need for autonomy is satisfied if individuals feel to be the source
of their actions (de Charms, 1968). Relatedness refers to feeling
connected and involved with others and is experienced both when
being cared for and when caring for others (Baumeister & Leary,
19950; Ryan & Deci, 2017).
In BPNT it is argued that psychological well-being, mental
health, and optimal functioning are dependent on the satisfaction
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg,
Box 500, Gothenburg 405 30, Sweden.
E-mail address: georg.henning@psy.gu.se (G. Henning).
of these three basic psychological needs. Similar to the notion that
people need specific physical nutrients to survive and stay healthy,
satisfaction of these psychological needs is crucial for well-being
(Ryan & Deci, 2017). Supporting these theoretical notions, higher
need satisfaction with regard to autonomy, competence, and relat-
edness has been associated with better well-being in several stud-
ies (Chen et al., 2015; Neubauer & Voss, 2016; Ng et al., 2012, Reis,
Sheldon, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). Fur-
ther, results supporting BPNT are found both at the within- (e.g.,
Neubauer & Voss, 2016) and the between-person level (e.g. Chen
et al., 2015).
The effects of need satisfaction are proposed to be universal for
all people and in all life stages (Ryan and Deci, 2017; Ryan & La
Guardia, 2000). In the SDT framework this is referred to as the uni-
versality assumption (Neubauer, Lerche, & Voss, 2017a; van
Assche, van der Keep-Deeder, Audenaert, de Schryver, &
Vansteenkiste, 2018). The universality assumption is often sup-
ported by studies showing comparable associations between need
satisfaction and well-being across cultures (Chen et al., 2015; Ng
et al., 2012). The presence of safety problems or financial problems
does not weaken the association (Chen et al., 2015b). Whereas this
universality assumption is sometimes understood as implying the
same effects for all individuals, a more moderate interpretation
leaves room for individual differences and moderators of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.03.008
0092-6566/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
152 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160

effects of need satisfaction on well-being (Chen, Soenens, analyze how the association of need satisfaction and well-being
Vansteenkiste, Van Petegem, & Beyers, 2016; Soenens, is affected over retirement transition.
Vansteenkiste, & Van Petegem, 2015; Van Assche, van der Kaap- We assume that potentially changing associations can most
Deeder, Audenaert, De Schryver, & Vansteenkiste, 2018). This mod- plausibly be explained by the fact that the satisfaction of specific
erate perspective was adopted for our analyses. needs gets less important for the individual, either implicitly or
explicitly. There is an ongoing debate on whether the subjective
importance of a need moderates the effect of need satisfaction on
1.2. The association of basic psychological need satisfaction and well-
well-being (Van Assche et al., 2018). Some studies suggest that
being in older age
individual (implicit or explicit) motives or goals might be associ-
ated with an increased need strength, which in turn might moder-
Little is known about change or stability in the relationship, or
ate the effect of need satisfaction on well-being (Custers, Cillessen,
coupling, of need satisfaction and well-being over the life span.
Westerhof, Kuin, & Riksen-Walraven, 2014; Schüler et al., 2013;
Studies relying on BPNT have usually been focused on inter-
Schüler, Sheldon, Prentice, & Halusic, 2016). Other studies found
individual differences, but not intra-individual changes, and most
no comparable moderation effects (Chen et al., 2015; Neubauer
research is based on young or middle-aged participants (e.g.
et al., 2017a), or ambiguous results (Sheldon & Schüler, 2011;
Chen et al., 2015; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000).
Van Assche et al., 2018). In the present study, we have no measure
Few studies exist that target older adults, although the very old
of the subjective importance of a need, which sent us focusing on
face very specific challenges and losses (Van Assche et al., 2018).
the association of need satisfaction and well-being. From our per-
Hence, a relevant question is if the well-being of older and very
spective, however, potentially changing associations would imply
old adults is based on satisfaction of the same needs as in earlier
that priorities or standards change. We propose two main path-
life stages (Neubauer, Schilling, & Wahl, 2017b).
ways to changes in the need satisfaction-well-being coupling.
In general, BPNT implies that all three needs will be important
First, we assume that certain needs are more or less important
over the whole lifespan, although their salience and the way to sat-
in specific life phases as a function of individual development and
isfy the needs might change (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000). This is sup-
maturation. Research has shown that over the life span, different
ported by a recent study showing that need satisfaction
factors can gain or lose importance. For example, the importance
contributed to well-being to a comparable degree in young,
of social relationships changes from young adulthood throughout
middle-aged, and older adults (Mackenzie, Karaoylas, & Starzyk,
the whole life span (Wrzus, Hänel, Wagner, & Neyer, 2013) and
2017). However, in this study, an aggregate score of need satisfac-
personal goals change during the transition to parenthood
tion was used, instead of assessing the needs separately. Further-
(Salmela-Aro, Nurmi, Saisto, & Halmesmäki, 2000) and from school
more, results of such cross-sectional age group comparisons can
to college or employment (Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Husemann, 2009).
be influenced by differential selection effects as well as cohort dif-
Therefore, it is also possible that experiencing autonomy, compe-
ferences. Nevertheless, there is evidence that need satisfaction
tence, or relatedness might become more important in specific life
seems to contribute to well-being in older age as well, for example
phases. Our assumption is partly related to the ideas of specific life
in residents of nursing homes (Custers, Westerhof, Kuin, Gerritsen,
stages with developmental tasks (Hutteman, Hennecke, Orth,
& Riksen-Walraven, 2013, Custers, Cillessen, Westerhof, Kuin, &
Reitz, & Specht, 2014) – satisfying specific needs might be associ-
Riksen-Walraven, 2014; Kasser & Ryan, 1999) or in recent retirees
ated with specific developmental tasks. Furthermore, social norms
(Houlfort et al., 2015).
might also differ between life phases and might be associated with
However, three recent studies indicate that satisfaction of some
different individual expectations as well.
needs might become less important in very old age. Ferrand,
Second, life span approaches to well-being often imply that var-
Martinent, and Durmaz (2014), found that relatedness and auton-
ious challenges are accompanied by prioritizing new goals and
omy, but not competence were related to well-being indicators in a
abandoning previous ones (see e.g., Baltes & Baltes, 1990;
sample older than 80 years living in residential homes. In a study
Brandstädter and Renner, 1990; Carstensen, 2006; Freund, 2017).
by Vanhove-Meriaux, Martinent, and Ferrand (2018) only related-
Correspondingly, Neubauer et al. (2017b) argue that very old peo-
ness and competence satisfaction, not autonomy satisfaction con-
ple might already have accepted the loss of autonomy, and there-
tributed to well-being in people still living at home in their 700 s
fore tend to rely on satisfaction in other needs to maintain a more
and 800 s, whereas autonomy dissatisfaction affected well-being
stable well-being. In line with this argument, we assume that if
negatively. Likewise, Neubauer et al. (2017b) found that close to
specific needs are harder, or easier, to satisfy in a specific life phase,
the end of life within-person changes in autonomy did not predict
this will affect the need satisfaction-well-being association. Needs
within-person changes in well-being, whereas within-person
that cannot be satisfied in a specific life phase should be aban-
changes in competence did.
doned, or downplayed, and people should focus on those that
As these three studies had no data on earlier life stages and no
can be more easily satisfied (Neubauer et al., 2017b). Correspond-
younger control group, the results could be a consequence of the
ingly, previous research shows that predictors of other well-being-
study design or the measures used. Longitudinal studies are
related constructs such as health-related quality of life (Barclay &
needed to understand actual changes in the coupling of need-
Tate, 2014) or subjective health (Spuling, Wolff, & Wurm, 2017)
satisfaction and well-being. We are not aware of any study that
change after serious health events as a function of comparable
has followed participants over a longer time span, investigating if
reprioritization. This assumption is also in line with the (de-)
the association between need satisfaction and well-being stays
sensitization hypothesis, which implies that the satisfaction of a
the same. However, there is some evidence that the association
need is more beneficial for people who previously have experi-
between need satisfaction and well-being might change, at least
enced higher need satisfaction during their whole life or in a speci-
in older age, although no clear patterns of changes have been iden-
fic period (Moller, Deci, & Elliot, 2010; Reis et al., 2000). People
tified yet.
who have experienced that a need is not likely to be fulfilled might
benefit less from need satisfaction but suffer more from need frus-
1.3. A life span approach to basic psychological need satisfaction tration. Moller et al. (2010) and Reis et al. (2000) found some sup-
port for this idea. Such changing associations would support a
Our analyses are directed by theoretical notions of life span more moderate viewpoint of the universality assumption in SDT
research and research on the BPNT, but designed to specifically (cf. Van Assche et al., 2018), as it allows for inter-individual differ-
 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
ences and most likely also intra-individual changes. Alternatively,
one could also think of a deprivation approach, implying that need
satisfaction might be of specific importance in a period with low
need satisfaction. Nevertheless, we are not aware of recent studies
showing evidence for such effects, which made us to follow the
ideas of Neubauer et al. (2017b) and the theoretical assumptions
derived from life span psychology.
Our assumptions are not in line with a more orthodox view on
the BPNT. For example, Ryan and La Guardia (2000) argue that in
older age only the means to satisfy basic needs should change
when people face challenges and reduced opportunities. Neverthe-
less, the satisfaction of all three needs should maintain their
importance and people should not be able to abandon some needs
(Ryan & La Guardia, 2000). The cross-sectional results of Mackenzie
et al. (2017), which show similar effects for different age groups,
support this traditional view.
We are not aware of studies that have specifically monitored
changes in the association between basic psychological need satis-
faction and well-being across major life transitions and phases of
the life span. As we assume life-span related changes as a result
of challenges and expectations in different life phases, we expect
that the association between need satisfaction and well-being
changes across important life transitions. The present study is, to
our knowledge, the first to monitor the association between need
satisfaction and well-being across the transition to retirement.
1.4. Need satisfaction and well-being across the retirement transition
Retirement represents an important life event which marks the
transition to a new life phase with distinct challenges and opportu-
nities (Henning, Lindwall, & Johansson, 2016; Wang, Henkens, &
van Solinge, 2011). Retirement has the potential to change daily
life, as work as a dominant life role is omitted (Taylor-Carter &
Cook, 1995), and free time is available to use (Ekerdt & Koss,
2016), while new expectations in the household and the family
may arise (Szinovacz and Davey, 2006). Recent literature reviews
show that the transition to retirement can have both positive
and negative effects, but is mostly associated with continuity in
well-being and psychological health (Henning et al., 2016;
Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). Nevertheless, many stud-
ies show short-term gains in well-being across the first years of
retirement (Henning, Hansson, Berg, Lindwall, & Johansson, 2017;
Gall, Evans, & Howard, 1997; Wetzel et al., 2015). The long-term
effects of retirement are yet less well understood, because it is hard
to disentangle retirement effects from normative or non-normative
age-related changes.
If we view the relationship between need satisfaction and well-
being as dynamic across the life span, we could assume that the
relative predictive strength of the three needs for well-being might
change during the retirement transition, as a new life phase with
new challenges and opportunities begins. Because previous
research is scarce in this area, it is hard to propose specific
hypotheses. In a recent study on retirement adjustment, satisfac-
tion of all three needs contributed to well-being in a sample of
retirees (Houlfort et al., 2015). Houlfort et al. (2015) did not con-
sider changes in need satisfaction or in their association with
well-being. Their findings, however, indicate that satisfaction of
all three needs remains an important contributor to well-being
after retirement, and we expect the same for our study.
H1: In line with universality views of BPNT we expect that auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness are independently related to well-
being before and after retirement.
We assume, however, that the relative contribution of the satis-
faction of a specific need can change after retirement, depending
on individual expectations/developmental tasks in retirement
and whether a need becomes can be satisfied in retirement.
153
Two studies on the association of well-being and autonomy
have been published on the HEARTS dataset that we use in the pre-
sent paper: First, Hansson, Buratti, Thorvaldsson, Johansson, and
Berg (2017) used two waves of data and showed that higher auton-
omy at baseline was associated with higher well-being, regardless
of retirement status. Baseline autonomy predicted changes in well-
being only for those retiring fully, not among those who were
retired, continued to work, and only retired partly. Hansson,
Buratti, Johansson, and Berg (2018) found in a three-wave study
that autonomy was comparably associated with level and change
in life satisfaction in both people continuing to work and retiring
over the study period. Surprisingly, autonomy was negatively asso-
ciated with changes in well-being in both studies. These findings,
however, were only revealed based on baseline measures of auton-
omy, and did not investigate whether the associations of autonomy
and well-being changed. Satisfaction of the two other needs was
not assessed in these two studies.
Based on the positive cross-sectional associations in the studies
reported above (Hansson et al., 2017, 2018; Houlfort et al., 2015)
we assume that autonomy will remain associated with well-
being over the retirement transition. Atchley (1976) stage model
of retirement implies that the first time after retirement is experi-
enced as a ‘‘honeymoon”, when people experience a previously
unknown freedom and autonomy to follow their own interests
and structure their life according to their own plans. If this pattern
is present in the public and individual expectations and norms
regarding retirement, we can assume that people expect to be
autonomous after retirement, and consider it more important for
their well-being than during work life. Furthermore, two studies
(Henning et al., 2019; Lindwall et al., 2017) found specific increases
in autonomy across the retirement transition in the same dataset
we use. Hence, the fact that people might specifically expect and
experience the advantages of autonomy after retirement leads to
our expectation that satisfaction of the need for autonomy might
become more strongly associated with well-being in the first phase
of retirement.
H2: In line with a dynamic life-span view of BPNT we assume that
autonomy is more strongly linked to well-being after retirement.
Many studies highlight the role of social support and relation-
ship quality in retirement (Dave, Rashad, & Spasojevic, 2008;
Heybroek, Haynes, & Baxter, 2015; Wang, 2007). We therefore
expect that the importance of relatedness may increase after
retirement. This is also in line with the socio-emotional selectivity
theory (Carstensen, 2006), which suggests that experiences of get-
ting older trigger a shortening of one’s perceived time span, which
in turn increases the need for relatedness. As retirement represents
an aging experience, we expect that there should be a stronger
association of feelings of relatedness and well-being after the
retirement transition.
H3: In line with a dynamic life-span view of BPNT we assume that
relatedness will be linked more strongly to well-being after retirement.
A person’s work can be an important source of perceived com-
petence and people often base their self-worth and identity on
their job and work performance. The question is if that reflects
an overall need to feel competent, or if the need to feel competent
is a reflection of being part of a competitive labor force. People
might judge competence as more important in work life compared
to after retirement. In support of this notion, there have been
reports of a so-called ‘‘dolce vita” effect in retirement, which refers
to the tendency that people may become less interested in produc-
tivity once they are retired (Marsh, Nagengast, & Morin, 2013). This
might go hand in hand with competence becoming a less impor-
tant predictor for well-being, at least in the first phase of retire-
ment. It might also be harder to experience competence in an
everyday setting lacking work demands. A reprioritization might
therefore be adaptive, although a recent study using HEARTS data
154 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
did not find support for decreases in competence over the retire-
ment transition (Henning et al., 2019). However, if competence is
perceived as more important during work life, we would expect
that the association between competence and well-being should
become weaker after retirement.
H4: In line with a dynamic life-span view of BPNT we expect that
competence will be more weakly linked to well-being after retirement.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample and procedure
Data was drawn from four measurement occasions of the Swed-
ish Health, Aging and Retirement Transitions in Sweden study
(HEARTS, Lindwall et al., 2017). HEARTS is a longitudinal study
focused on psychological aspects of aging and the retirement tran-
sition. Participants are followed over time with annual assess-
ments. A nationally representative sample (N = 14.990) of people
aged 60–66 was drawn in 2015, and in a first assessment in
2015, 5913 (40%) participated in the survey. Among these,
4,651 people participated in wave 2 (78.7% of year 1 participants),
4,320 participants filled out the survey in wave 3 (73.1% of wave 1
participants), and 4,033 (68.21%) participated again in the fourth
wave. The survey was conducted online, but for those who could
or did not want to participate online, a paper survey was provided.
The questionnaire includes questions on socio-demographics,
work life and retirement, well-being, health, lifestyle, social net-
work, personality, as well as tests of cognitive performance.
In our analyses, we aimed at including all participants. How-
ever, time points when people were on sick leave, received disabil-
ity pension or were unemployed were not integrated in the
analysis, because they could then neither be categorized as retired
nor working individuals. This excluded 279 individuals from the
sample because they did not have any time points were they were
either retired or working which provided us with 5634 individuals
for whom we had at least one time point available, either as work-
ing or retired. Due to missing values on other main predictors,
another 560 participants were excluded in the multilevel model.
The final model consisted of 5,074 individuals with 15,327 (per-
son  occasion) data points.
At baseline, 1,523 persons were retired and 3,591 were not.
Between wave 1 and 2, 474 participants retired, 412 did so
between wave 2 and 3, and another 361 between wave 3 and 4.
Notably between wave 1 and 2, 41 persons returned back to work
from retirement (‘‘unretired”), whereas 54 persons ‘‘unretired”
between wave 2 and 3, and 48 persons ‘‘unretired” between wave
3 and 4.
2.2. Measures
Retirement. In the HEARTS questionnaire, participants were
asked ‘‘Are you retired (have you started to take out old age pen-
sion)?” Participants could reply a) no; b) yes, but working and con-
sider myself a worker; c) yes, working at the same time, but consider
myself a retiree; d) yes, full-time retiree. For every year, we coded
those as retired who perceived themselves as retired (c and d).
There is no clear guideline on how to conceptualize retirement in
the literature (see e.g., Ekerdt & Deviney, 1990; Denton &
Spencer, 2006). We chose the current operationalization, because
we were interested in retirement representing a specific life phase.
We assumed that feeling retired or not would be crucial for the
individual expectations for the current life phase. Categorizing
people who still worked, but felt retired, as working, or treating
people who were still working and only got some pension in addi-
tion, as retired, would have been inappropriate in this context. The
participant’s retirement status at every wave was coded as 0 for
not retired and 1 for retired.
Well-Being. We assessed the cognitive-evaluative component of
subjective well-being using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener
et al., 1984). This scale consists of five items on a 7 point Likert
scale. The scale’s reliability was Cronbachs a = 0.92 for the first
two waves, and 0.93 for the third and fourth. Unfortunately, there
is no measure of affect in the HEARTS survey, so we could not
include affective well-being.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction. Basic psychological need
satisfaction (autonomy, relatedness, and competence) was
assessed using six items of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfac-
tion and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS; Chen et al., 2015). Because of
limited space in the survey, the established long scale could not
be used for the assessment of basic psychological need satisfaction.
For each need, a mean score of two items was computed, as in a
recent paper by Henning et al. (2019). We report the Spearman-
Brown coefficient, which is the recommended indicator of reliabil-
ity for two-item scales (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013). We
assessed autonomy using the items ‘‘I feel a sense of choice and
freedom in the things I undertake” and ‘‘I feel I do what really
interests me”. Relatedness was assessed by the items ‘‘I feel that
the people I care about also care about me” and ‘‘I feel close and
connected with other people who are important to me”. Compe-
tence was measured by the items ‘‘I feel capable at what I do”
and ‘‘I feel I can successfully complete difficult tasks”. The items
were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Spearman-Brown reliabilities
for autonomy were a = 0.73 at the first time point, a = 0.75 at the
second and third, and a = 0.74 at the fourth time point. Reliabilities
for relatedness were a = 0.80 at all four time points. Reliabilities for
competence were a = 0.66 for all time points. Cross-correlations
supporting the criterion-validity of the short-forms are described
in Henning et al. (2019).
Covariates. We included covariates that might influence if peo-
ple retire or not, to get a clearer picture of the effect of retirement.
Included covariates were age at baseline, gender, years of educa-
tion, and health. Health was assessed as the individual number of
reported diseases/symptoms from a list of 33 possible diseases/
symptoms.
2.3. Analysis
The aim of our analysis was to understand changes in the asso-
ciation of basic psychological need satisfaction and well-being
across the retirement transition. To distinguish between possible
selection into retirement and changes after retirement, we used a
multilevel model which allowed us to disentangle between-
person effects (e.g., Do people feeling very competent report higher
well-being than people who feel less competent?) and within-
person effects (e.g., Do people report higher well-being at time
points when they feel more competent in comparison to time
points when they fell less competent?). Distinguishing these two
levels is crucial to understand psychological processes and studies
often mix within- and between level associations, although effects
can differ between levels (Hofer & Sliwinski, 2001; Neubauer et al.,
2017b; Robitaille et al., 2014). All analyses were conducted in
MPlus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998, 2015) using the robust
maximum-likelihood estimator and missing data was handled
using full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation
(Enders, 2010).
We used a stepwise approach. First, we computed an intercept-
only model. Afterwards, we included only covariates. In a third
step, we added the main effects of need satisfaction and retire-
ment. We included all predictors in one model, to disentangle
specific effects of the separate needs. A recent meta-analysis for
example showed that satisfaction of the three needs has unique
 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
effects (at least at the work place), and they often differ in strength,
and even direction (Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, 2016).
In a final step we included the interaction effects between
retirement and autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respec-
tively, to investigate if the predictive power of the latter constructs
for well-being is different after retirement. The within-person
interaction effects show if need satisfaction was stronger/weaker
associated with well-being after retirement than before for those
retiring during the study period. The between-person interaction
effects show if the association between need satisfaction and
well-being at the between-person level depended on the partici-
pants’ retirement status – positive interaction effects would imply
that need satisfaction had a more positive association with well-
being among retired individuals.
Continuous between-level predictors (i.e., age and education)
were grand-mean centered in all models. Within-level predictor
variables (disease burden, autonomy, competence, relatedness,
and retirement) were decomposed into latent between-and
within-level parts. This procedure can be viewed as an implicit
latent person-mean centering of the within-level variables
(Lüdtke et al., 2008). Whereas person-mean centering is recom-
mended if interaction terms are included at the within-level (as
in Model 4), grand-mean centering is recommended if interaction
terms are included at the between-level (Enders & Tofighi, 2007;
Ryu, 2015). As such, in Model 5 we centered the predictor variables
used to create the interaction terms (i.e., autonomy, competence,
relatedness, and retirement) at the grand mean to obtain unbiased
between-level estimates.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the study variables in the
sample used in the multi-level models.
We computed intra-class correlations (ICC) for our variables of
interest (well-being, autonomy, competence, and relatedness) to
assess the variance in the variables at the between-person level.
The ICC was 73.8% for well-being, 61.9% for autonomy, 62.5% for
relatedness, and 61.1% for competence. This indicates high depen-
dency in the data and that a multilevel model should be used, it
also suggests sufficient within-person variance in both well-
being and need satisfaction.
Correlations between the study variables at the within- and the
between- level are presented in Table 2. Well-being was positively
associated with basic psychological need satisfaction at both the
within- and the between-level, but the associations were stronger
at the between level. Retirement was positively associated with
higher well-being at both levels. Retirement was related to higher
autonomy and relatedness at the within-person level. At the
Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
T1
M(SD)/%
Age 63.14 (2.04)
Gender 53.61% female
Education (years) 13.73 (3.28)
Diseases 4.70 (3.57)
Retirement 29.78% retired
Well-Being 4.92 (1.34)
Autonomy 3.88 (0.78)
Relatedness 4.39 (0.7)
Competence 4.05 (0.68)
n = 5,634. Note: The sample statistics include all individuals that had valid data on retirement status at the respective time point. The n per cell varied from 3562 to 5114.
155
between-person level, retirement was associated with higher
autonomy and relatedness, but lower competence. Satisfaction of
the three needs was positively inter-correlated at both levels.
3.2. Multilevel models
Table 3 shows estimates from the multilevel models. The step-
wise procedure included an intercept only model (model 1), only
covariates in Model 2, covariates, need satisfaction and retirement
in Model 3, additional interaction effects and centering adequate to
study within-level interaction effects in Model 4, and centering
appropriate for between-level interaction effects in Model 5. The
2*loglikelihood values decreased significantly with every model
from model 1 to model 4 (model 1 to 3 all p < 0.001, model 3 to
4 p < 0.05), which indicates significantly improved model fit by
including the additional predictors.
Covariates explained both between- and within-person vari-
ance in well-being (Model 2). When the main predictors were
included (Model 3), retirement had no statistically significant
effect on well-being, neither within (B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p = 0.148)
nor between persons (B = 0.09, SE = 0.05, p = 0.065). In correspon-
dence to hypothesis 1 higher levels of satisfaction of all three needs
were related to higher well-being at the within-person level
(autonomy: B = 0.45, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; relatedness: B = 0.22,
SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; competence: B = 0.18, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). At
the between–person level, however, there were only positive
effects of autonomy (B = 1.14, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001) and relatedness
(B = 0.51, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), but the effect of competence was not
statistically significant (B = -0.07, SE = 0.04, p = 0.075).
The positive interaction effect of autonomy and retirement at
the within-person level implies that the association between
autonomy and well-being was higher at time points when individ-
uals were retired (in line with hypothesis 2), although the size of
the effect was relatively small and it was only statistically signifi-
cant at an alpha level of 5% (B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.048). See Fig. 1
for an illustration of this effect. At the between-person level, the
interaction effect was not statistically significant (B = 0.19,
SE = 0.10, p = 0.060).
In contrast to hypothesis 3, the association of relatedness and
retirement did not depend on retirement status, neither on the
within – (B = 0.03, SE = 0.03, p = 0.420) nor the between-person
level (B = 0.07, SE = 0.10, p = 0.466).
In contrast to our expectations in hypothesis 4, there was no sta-
tistically significant interaction of competence and retirement at
the within-person level (B = 0.01, SE = 0.03, p = 0.817). At the
between-person level, however, we found a significant interaction
effect (B = 0.42, SE = 0.12, p = 0.001). Fig. 2 illustrates this effect:
Competence was related to lower well-being among those not
retired, whereas competence was related to higher well-being
among retired persons. Simple slopes showed that the effects were
T2 T3 T4
M(SD)/% M(SD)/% M(SD)/%
64.24 (2.02) 65.23 (2.00) 66.17 (2.00)
54.28% female 53.64% 53.58%
13.83 (3.30) 13.85 (3.30) 13.85 (3.27)
4.64 (3.58) 4.66 (3.55) 4.82 (3.56)
44.22% retired 55.28% retired 64.16% retired
4.96 (1.31) 4.95 (1.35) 4.99 (1.40)
3.91 (0.78) 3.97 (0.79) 4.02 (0.80)
4.38 (0.69) 4.40 (0.69) 4.45 (0.70)
4.07 (0.68) 4.07 (0.69) 4.06 (0.71)
156 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160

Table 2
Within-and between-person correlations.

Within-Person correlations
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Well-being 1
2. Diseases 0.13*** 1
3. Retirement 0.07*** 0.04*** 1
4. Relatedness 0.27*** 0.03** 0.05*** 1
5. Autonomy 0.40*** 0.09*** 0.18*** 0.30*** 1
6. Competence 0.24*** 0.04*** 0.00 0.28*** 0.30*** 1
Between-Person correlations
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Well-being 1
2. Diseases 0.51*** 1
3. Retirement 0.06*** 0.09*** 1
4. Relatedness 0.63*** 0.23*** 0.06** 1
5. Autonomy 0.81*** 0.46*** 0.10*** 0.61*** 1
6. Competence 0.56*** 0.36*** 0.17*** 0.54*** 0.65*** 1
7. Education 0.06*** 0.11*** 0.17*** 0.01 0.04* 0.16*** 1
8. Age 0.07*** 0.02 0.69*** 0.05** 0.14*** 0.06*** 0.05** 1
9. Gender (female) 0.01 0.10*** 0.06*** 0.16*** 0.01 0.02 0.04** 0.02 1

n= 5,634.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

Table 3
Estimates from multilevel models with subjective well-being regressed on basic psychological need satisfaction.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Intercept 4.92 (0.02)*** 5.72 (0.03)*** 1.20 (0.13)*** 0.88 (0.20)*** 5.31 (0.03)***
***
Within-person Time 0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)
Disease burden 0.05 (0.01)*** 0.04 (0.00)*** 0.04 (0.00)*** 0.04 (0.00)***
Autonomy 0.45 (0.02)*** 0.42 (0.02)*** 0.45 (0.02)***
Relatedness 0.22 (0.02)*** 0.23 (0.02)*** 0.22 (0.02)***
Competence 0.18 (0.02)*** 0.18 (0.02)*** 0.18 (0.02)***
Retirement 0.03 (0.02) 0.06 (0.14) 0.03 (0.02)
Autonomy  Retirement 0.06 (0.03)* 0.06 (0.03)*
Relatedness  Retirement 0.03 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03)
Competence  Retirement 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
Between-person effects Age 0.03 (0.01)*** 0.03 (0.01)*** 0.03 (0.01)*** 0.03 (0.01)***
Gender (female) 0.15 (0.03)*** 0.03 (0.02) 0.03 (0.02) 0.03 (0.02)
Education 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00)* 0.01 (0.00)* 0.01 (0.00)*
Disease burden 0.19 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)***
Autonomy 1.14 (0.04)*** 1.22 (0.06)*** 1.13 (0.04)***
Relatedness 0.51 (0.04)*** 0.57 (0.06)*** 0.53 (0.04)***
Competence 0.07 (0.04) 0.28 (0.07)*** 0.09 (0.04)*
Retirement 0.06 (0.05) 0.55 (0.33) 0.08 (0.05)
Autonomy  Retirement 0.19 (0.10) 0.19 (0.10)
Relatedness  Retirement 0.07 (0.10) 0.07 (0.10)
Competence  Retirement 0.42 (0.12)** 0.42 (0.12)**
Model summary Residual variance (within) 0.48 (0.01)*** 0.48 (0.01)*** 0.39 (0.01)*** 0.38 (0.01)*** 0.39 (0.01)***
Residual Variance (between) 1.38 (0.03)*** 0.98 (0.03)*** 0.39 (0.02)*** 0.39 (0.02)*** 0.39 (0.02) ***
Deviance statistic 219,718.83 218,193.49 212.436.13 212,414.03 212,414.03
Number of estimated parameters 3 9 17 23 23

n = 5,074.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

significant both for workers (B = 0.09, SE = 0.04, p = 0.038) and
retirees (B = 0.33, SE = 0.13, p = 0.010).
A model without covariates, which can be found in Appendix A,
had very similar results.
4. Discussion
In the present study, we investigated change in the associations
among the three basic psychological need satisfaction components
(autonomy, relatedness, and competence) and well-being during
the retirement transition. According to the orthodox view on the
universality assumption of the basic psychological needs theory,
we should expect stability (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000), whereas a
more moderate viewpoint would allow for inter/intra-individual
differences or changes (Neubauer et al., 2017b; Van Assche et al.,
2018).
We found that satisfaction of all three needs was positively
related to well-being at the within-person level. These effects are
 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
Fig. 1. Within-person interaction effects, line graph of the model 4 coefficients,
showing how the associations between basic psychological need satisfaction and
well-being changes as people retire.
Fig. 2. Between-person interaction effects, bar graphs of the model 5 coefficients,
showing how the association between need satisfaction and well-being differs
between people working and those retired.
in line with previous research on the basic psychological needs (Ng
et al., 2012; Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996) and confirm that
need satisfaction is important for individual well-being. At the
between-person level, however, only autonomy and relatedness
were positively related to well-being. This lack of effect of compe-
tence was unexpected. We can only speculate about the reasons.
Previous studies in the work domain have revealed similar results:
A meta-analysis by Van den Broeck et al. (2016) showed that com-
petence need satisfaction at work did often not have any further
positive effects, and sometimes even negative effects, once auton-
omy and relatedness were taken into account. This indicates that
the need for competence is likely to differ from the other needs
in terms of associations and implications for well-being. Further-
more, the association between need satisfaction and well-being
has in previous studies seldom been decomposed into between-
and within-person associations. In addition, the bivariate correla-
tion between satisfaction and competence is strongly positive
(see Table 2), which suggests that the relationship between well-
being and competence could be dependent on overarching mecha-
nisms captured in our model, but further studies into this are
needed.
The main research question was if the associations between
need satisfaction and well-being would change over the retirement
transition. In line with a moderate interpretation of the universal-
ity assumption, we found significant interactions between retire-
ment status and basic psychological need satisfaction. At the
within-person level, autonomy was more strongly related to
157
well-being after retirement than before (in line with hypothesis
2), but the between-person effect was similar for retirees and
workers. Hence, we conclude that not only basic psychological
need satisfaction itself (Henning et al., in 2019), but also the pre-
dictive power of basic psychological need satisfaction can change
across life events. Notably, results seem to vary depending on level
of analyses, mirroring the Simpson paradox (e.g., Kievit,
Frankenhuis, Waldorp, & Borsboom, 2013).
Autonomy was more closely related to well-being after retire-
ment than before. Given the fact that we analyzed within-person
effects, this finding is unlikely to be a product of selection effects.
Instead we assume that the changing association mirrors specific
individual challenges and opportunities following retirement. The
increasing opportunity to experience autonomy might also
increase its effect in line with the sensitization theory (Moller
et al., 2010). Furthermore, once people are freed from the daily
hassles and routines in one’s work life, it may become more impor-
tant to experience autonomy and to be in control of one’s own
actions. It has to be noted though, that the effect size was rather
small and only seen at the within-person level.
The effect of relatedness did not change over retirement (in con-
trast to hypothesis 3). Our hypothesis was that retirement might
trigger feelings of growing old, which in turn would lead to an
increased need for relatedness according to socioemotional selec-
tivity theory (Carstensen, 2006). One potential explanation could
be that in line with the honeymoon effect found in several studies
(Lindwall et al., 2017; Wetzel et al., 2015), retirement may rather
be perceived as a period associated with opportunities rather than
a trigger of negative aging expectations. In line with the universal-
ity assumption of SDT, relatedness may in fact have comparable
effects on well-being over the entire life span.
We did not find a statistically significant within-person level
interaction of competence and retirement. The between-person
interaction, however, showed that among working participants,
those reporting higher competence tended to report lower well-
being, whereas among retirees, those reporting higher competence
tended to report higher well-being (in contrast to hypothesis 4). If
the interaction effect is interpreted as a reaction to changing
expectations, challenges, and opportunities, it should also occur
within persons. Notably, that was not the case. A reason might
be that the changing meaning of competence occurs in later years
of retirement, so it was not captured in our within-person change
analyses. The longer people are retired, the more important it
might become to perceive competence after a ‘‘honeymoon phase”
signaling freedom and spirit. Another potential reason might be
that those feeling particularly competent in the years before retire-
ment in fact have more negative expectations about retirement,
which affects their well-being, although these expectations are
not experienced after the retirement occasion. Alternatively, in
the last years of one’s work life, people with higher competence
might be those who feel more unchallenged, as long as they do
not experience more autonomy and relatedness (Van den Broeck
et al., 2016). After retirement, global competence ratings might
resemble competence in other, more important life areas. The
effects could also be a result of selection into retirement such that
among people with high perceived competence, those with higher
well-being might already have retired before the study, while the
less satisfied might still continue to work although they would
have liked to retire.
4.1. Theoretical implications
Our findings have implications for future research on basic psy-
chological need satisfaction. Previous theoretical and empirical
work has largely focused on individual differences in need satisfac-
tion and how these differences relate to differences in well-being
158 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
(e.g., Chen et al., 2015). A strict view on basic psychological need
satisfaction is based on the assumption that everybody benefits
from need satisfaction in a comparable way. Factors contributing
to need satisfaction may not be the same for all people, but need
satisfaction has the same effects for all people (cf. Ryan & La
Guardia, 2000). In line with a more moderate interpretation of
the universality assumption (Van Assche et al., 2018), recent stud-
ies have investigated individual differences in the way that each
need contributes to well-being (Neubauer et al., 2017a). The find-
ings of our study show that the association between need satisfac-
tion and well-being may not only differ between persons, but can
also change within persons across important life transitions. Inte-
grating age and retirement status as moderators in future studies
might help us to better determine who benefits more or less by
the various need satisfaction components and, potentially also by
need-supporting interventions. Such a more dynamic life-span
view on basic psychological need satisfaction could offer better
explanations for the observed findings. We assume that adaptive
goal engagement and disengagement (Freund, 2017), as well as
specific developmental tasks in different life phases (Hutteman
et al., 2014) might be driving factors behind observed changes.
As noted in Section 1.3, we did not measure need strength, goals
or motives explicitly or implicitly, we only tested changing associ-
ations. We are not able to say if people rated autonomy, compe-
tence, or relatedness as more important after retirement or
before. Some studies suggest that individual need strength can
explain inter-individual differences in the need satisfaction-well-
being coupling (Schüler, Brandstätter, & Sheldon, 2013). Other
studies find no support for such potential effects (e.g. Chen et al.,
2015) and the debate is so far not resolved (Van Assche et al.,
2018).
The present study adds to the retirement adjustment literature,
because instead of predicting well-being for retirees only, or pre-
dicting change in well-being over retirement, we investigate if
the predictors differ between work life and retirement. Our results
emphasize the important role of autonomy in the retirement
adjustment.
4.2. Limitations
A limitation of the present paper is that we only had data for
four time points available. Hence, within-person dynamics were
restricted to changes across only four years. Unfortunately, there
are few longitudinal aging studies that include measures of basic
psychological need satisfaction, in particular of all three needs. Ide-
ally, comparable studies should be done with more measurement
occasions, preferably using micro-longitudinal data or burst
designs (Sliwinski, Hoffman, & Hofer, 2010; Neubauer et al.,
2017a). Such a design should include data from before and after
the retirement transition, to clarify if potential differences reflect
actual changes or selection effects. Studies with other samples
would also shed light on the question if our results are only present
in Swedish, relatively highly educated individuals, or if they hold in
other countries and more heterogeneous samples as well. In addi-
tion, longitudinal studies with longer follow-ups would enable us
properly separate the short-term variability from the long-term
variability (i.e., not only 3–5 years but 1–2 decades). This would
allow us to understand if the observed effects are only present in
the direct transition phase, or if they hold over longer time periods.
Adaptation to retirement is typically characterized as a process
with different short-term and long-term developments (e.g.
Atchley, 1976; Pinquart and Schindler, 2007). An alternative inter-
pretation of our findings is that the association of need satisfaction
and well-being largely remains constant over the life span, only
changes during certain periods such as the retirement transition,
and usually returns to the old level. For example, autonomy might
only be needed more strongly immediately after retirement, in the
so-called honeymoon phase (Atchley, 1976).
Furthermore, as a consequence of the research design we only
had two-item scales for each of the three basic psychological
needs, and some of the reliability coefficients were consequently
less than optimal. As previously noted we did not have any mea-
sures on need strength, or the subjective importance ratings for
satisfaction the separate needs, to test the proposed adaptation
processes more in detail. Additionally, we only focused on need
satisfaction and did not measure need frustration, which is a
related but distinct concept (Neubauer & Voss, 2016). Furthermore,
in the HEARTS study we are only able to investigate the more
cognitive-evaluative component of well-being; life satisfaction
(Diener, 2000), because the study lacks an established measure of
positive and negative affect. We can only speculate if predictors of
affective well-being change in comparable ways. It is possible that
affective well-being is less prone to changes in individual expecta-
tions and social norms after retirement. Future studies could hope-
fully also include measures of affective well-being.
4.3. Conclusion
Our study suggests that there are systematic changes in the
relationship between basic psychological needs and well-being
during the retirement transition. It expands and merges the BPNT
framework with life span theories to provide a more detailed
understanding of the retirement transition and its effects on
well-being. Future studies should investigate if the coupling of
need satisfaction and well-being may change over other major life
events as well, and try to shed light on underlying mechanisms, as
for example changes in need strength.
Disclosure: Transparency and open data
This study was not pre-registered. Because of Swedish data protec-
tion laws, we are currently not allowed to share HEARTS data pub-
lically. We are working on a solution for this problem.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the grants Dnr
2013-2291 and Dnr 2013-2300 from the Swedish Research Council
for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE).
 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160 159

Appendix A. Multilevel models with subjective well-being regressed on basic psychological need satisfaction (no covariates)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Intercept 4.91 (0.02)*** 4.87 (0.02)*** 2.00 (0.11)*** 1.57 (0.19)*** 4.99 (0.02)***

Within-person Time 0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)* 0.01 (0.01)* 0.01 (0.01)*
Autonomy 0.45 (0.02)*** 0.42 (0.02)*** 0.46 (0.02)***
Relatedness 0.22 (0.02)*** 0.24 (0.2)*** 0.22 (0.02)***
Competence 0.17 (0.02)*** 0.18 (0.02)*** 0.17 (0.02)***
Retirement 0.04 (0.02) 0.04 (0.14) 0.04 (0.02)
Autonomy  Retirement 0.08 (0.03)* 0.08 (0.03)*
Relatedness  Retirement 0.04 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03)
Competence  Retirement 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)

Between-person Autonomy 1.29 (0.04)*** 1.34 (0.06)*** 1.28 (0.04)***

Relatedness 0.46 (0.03)*** 0.55 (0.06)*** 0.48 (0.03)***
Competence 0.03 (0.04) 0.27 (0.07)** 0.05 (0.04)
Retirement 0.10 (0.03)** 0.91 (0.32)** 0.10 (0.03)**
Autonomy  Retirement 0.11 (0.10) 0.11 (0.10)
Relatedness  Retirement 0.15 (0.10) 0.15 (0.10)
Competence  Retirement 0.47 (0.12)*** 0.47 (0.12)**

Model summary Residual variance (within) 0.49 (0.01)*** 0.49 (0.01)*** 0.40 (0.01)*** 0.40 (0.01)*** 0.38 (0.01)***
Residual Variance (between) 1.40 (0.03)*** 1.40 (0.03)*** 0.44 (0.02)*** 0.44 (0.02)*** 0.43 (0.02) ***
Deviance statistic 165,143.69 165,130, 59 158,020.69 157,986.03 157,986.03
Number of estimated parameters 3 4 12 18 18

n = 5,450, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***

p < 0.001.

References Denton, F. T., & Spencer, B. G. (2006). What is retirement? A review and assessment
of alternative concepts and measures. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue
Canadienne du vieillissement, 28, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Atchley, R. C. (1976). The sociology of retirement. New York: Halsted Press.
S0714980809090047.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging:
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for
The model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M.
a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging. Perspectives from the behavioral sciences
0003-066X.55.1.34.
(pp. 1–34). Cambridge: University Press.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. Y., & Griffin, S. (1984). The satisfaction with life
Barclay, R., & Tate, R. B. (2014). Response shift recalibration and reprioritization in
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/
health-related quality of life was identified prospectively in older men with and
s15327752jpa4901_13.
without stroke. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 500–507. https://doi.org/
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.003.
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health,
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
58, 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
Ekerdt, D. J., & Deviney, S. (1990). On defining persons as retired. Journal of Aging
497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497.
Studies, 4, 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-4065(90)90023-2.
Brandstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal
Ekerdt, D. J., & Koss, C. (2016). The task of time in retirement. Aging and Society, 36,
adjustment: explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and
1295–1311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15000367.
accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology & Aging, 5, 58–61. https://doi.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
org/10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.58.
multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12,
Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development.
121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121.
Science, 312, 1913–1915. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chen, B., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S.,
Ferrand, C., Martinent, G., & Durmaz, N. (2014). Psychological need satisfaction and
et al. (2015a). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need
well-being in adults aged 80years and older living in residential homes: Using a
strength across four cultures. Motivation & Emotion, 39, 216–236. https://doi.
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 104–111.
org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.04.004.
Chen, B., Van Assche, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2015b). Does
Freund, A. M. (2017). Motivational changes across adulthood: The role of goal
psychological need satisfaction matter when environmental or financial safety
representations for adult development and aging. In R. A. Scott & M. Buchmann
are at risk? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/
(Eds.), Emerging trends in the behavioral and social sciences. https://doi.org/
s10902-014-9532-5.
10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0424.
Chen, B. W., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Petegem, S., & Beyers, W.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Howard, J. (1997). The retirement adjustment process:
(2016). Where do the cultural differences in dynamics of controlling
Changes in the well-being of male retirees across time. Journal of Gerontology:
parenting lie? Adolescents as active agents in the perception of and
Psychological Sciences, 52B, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/52b.3.
coping with parental behavior. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 169–192. https://
p110.
doi.org/10.5334/pb.306.
Hansson, I., Buratti, S., Johansson, B., & Berg, A. I. (2018). Beyond health and
Custers, A. F. J., Cillessen, A. H. J., Westerhof, G. J., Kuin, Y., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M.
economy: Resource interactions in retirement adjustment. Aging & Mental
(2014). Need fulfillment, need importance, and depressive symptoms of
Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2018.1506745.
residents over the first eight months of living in a nursing home. International
Hansson, I., Buratti, S., Thorvaldsson, V., Johansson, B., & Berg, A. I. (2017). Changes
Psychogeriatrics, 26, 1161–1170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610214000659.
in life satisfaction in the retirement transition: Interaction effects of transition
Custers, A. F. J., Westerhof, G. J., Kuin, Y., Gerritsen, D. L., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M.
type and individual resources. Work, Aging & Retirement. https://doi.org/
(2013). Need fulfillment in the nursing home: Resident and observer
10.1093/workar/wax025. wax025.
perspectives in relation to resident well-being. European Journal of Ageing, 10,
Henning, G., Hansson, I., Berg, A. I., Lindwall, M., & Johansson, B. (2017). The role of
201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-013-0263-y.
personality for subjective well-being in the retirement transition – Comparing
Dave, D., Rashad, I., & Spasojevic, J. (2008). The effects of retirement on physical and
variable- and person-oriented models. Personality and Individual Differences,
mental health outcomes. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 497–523. https://doi.
116, 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.017.
org/10.3386/w12123.
Henning, G., Lindwall, M., & Johansson, B. (2016). Continuity in well-being in the
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of
transition to retirement. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and
behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Geriatric Psychiatry, 59, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000155.
160 G. Henning et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 79 (2019) 151–160
Henning, G., Stenling, A., Tafvelin, S., Hansson, I., Kivi, M., Johansson, B., & Lindwall,
M. (2019). Pre-retirement work motivation and subsequent retirement
adjustment – a self-determination theory perspective Advance Online
Publication. Work, Aging & Retirement. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/way017.
Hofer, S., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2001). Understanding ageing: An evaluation of research
designs for assessing the interdependence of ageing-related changes.
Gerontology, 47, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052825.
Houlfort, N., Fernet, C., Vallerand, R. J., Lafambroise, A., Guay, F., & Koestner, R.
(2015). The role of passion for work and need satisfaction in psychological
adjustment to retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 84–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.005 0001-8791.
Heybroek, L., Haynes, M., & Baxter, J. (2015). Life satisfaction and retirement in
Australia: A longitudinal approach. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1, 166–180.
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wav006.
Hutteman, R., Hennecke, M., Orth, U., Reitz, A. K., & Specht, J. (2014). Developmental
tasks as a framework to study personalitydevelopment in adulthood and old
age. European Journal of Personality, 28, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/
per.1959.
Kasser, V. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of psychological needs for autonomy
and relatedness to vitality, well-being, and mortality in a nursing home. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 935–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1999.tb00133.x.
Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Simpson’s
paradox in psychological science: A practical guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,
513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513.
Lindwall, M., Berg, A. I., Bjälkebring, P., Buratti, S., Hansson, I., Henning, G., ...
Johansson, B. (2017). Psychological health in the retirement transition:
Rationale and first findings in the HEalth, Aging and Retirement Transitions in
Sweden (HEARTS) study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01634. article number 1634.
Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and
adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis on differences between cognitive and
affective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 592–615.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025948.
Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B.
(2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to
group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13, 203–229.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012869.
Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Husemann, N. (2009). Goal and personality trait
development in a transitional period: Testing principles of personality
development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 428–441. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167208329215.
Mackenzie, C. S., Karaoylas, E. C., & Starzyk, K. B. (2017). Lifespan differences in a self
determination theory model of eudaimonia: A cross-sectional survey of
younger, middle-aged, and older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9932-4.
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-
five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity,
and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1194–1218. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0026913.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Elliot, A. J. (2010). Person-level relatedness and the
incremental value of relating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
754–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371622.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles:
Muthén & Muthén.
Neubauer, A. B., Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2017). Inter-individual differences in the
intra-individual association of competence and well-being: Combining
experimental and intensive longitudinal designs Advance online publication.
Journal of Personality, 86, 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12351.
Neubauer, A. B., Schilling, O. K., & Wahl, H.-W. (2017). What do we need at the end
of life? Competence, but not autonomy predicts intra-individual fluctuations in
subjective well-being in very old age. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geronb/gbv052.
Neubauer, A. B., & Voss, A. (2016). The structure of need fulfillment – Separating
need satisfaction and dissatisfaction on between- and within-person level.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759/a000326. Advance online publication.
Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., &
Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A
meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1745691612447309.
Pinquart, M., & Schindler, I. (2007). Changes of life satisfaction in the transition to
retirement: A latent-class approach. Psychology and Aging, 22(3), 442–455.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.442.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being:
The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002.
Robitaille, A., Muniz, G., Lindwall, M., Piccinin, A. M., Hoffman, L., Johansson, B., et al.
(2014). Physical activity and cognitive functioning in the oldest old: Within-
and between-person cognitive activity and psychosocial mediators. European
Journal of Ageing, 11, 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-014-0314-z.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized? Self-determination
theory and basic psychological needs. In S. H. Qualls & N. Abeles (Eds.),
Psychology and the aging revolution: How we adapt to longer life (pp. 145–172).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ryu, E. (2015). Multiple Group Analysis in Multilevel Structural Equation Model
Across Level 1 Groups. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 300–315. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.1003769.
Salmela-Aro, K., Nurmi, J.-E., Saisto, T., & Halmesmäki, E. (2000). Women’s and
men’s personal goals during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.2.171.
Schüler, J., Brandstätter, V., & Sheldon, K. M. (2013). Do implicit motives and basic
psychological needs interact to predict wellbeing and flow? Testing a universal
hypothesis and a matching hypothesis. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 480–495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9317-2.
Schüler, J., Sheldon, K. M., Prentice, M., & Halusic, M. (2016). Do some people need
autonomy more than others? Implicit dispositions toward autonomy moderate
the effects of felt autonomy on well-being. Journal of Personality, 84, 5–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12133.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/
01461672962212007.
Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing: Integrating
motive disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 101, 1106–1123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024952.
Sliwinski, M., Hoffman, L., & Hofer, S. (2010). Modeling retest and aging effects in a
measurement burst design. In P. C. M. Molenaar & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Individual
pathways of change: Statistical models for analyzing learning and development
(pp. 37–50). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the
baby with the bathwater: Applying the principle of universalism without
uniformity to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child
Development Perspectives, 9, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12103.
Spuling, S., Wolff, J. K., & Wurm, S. (2017). Response shift in self-rated health after
serious health events in old age. Social Science & Medicine, 192, 85–93. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.026.
Szinovacz, M. E., & Davey, A. (2006). Effects of retirement and grandchild care on
depressive symptoms. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,
62, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2190/8q46-gjx4-m2vm-w60v.
Taylor-Carter, M. A., & Cook, K. (1995). Adaptation to retirement: Role changes and
psychological resources. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 67–82. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00530.x.
Van Assche, J., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Audenaert, E., De Schryver, M., &
Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). Are the benefits of autonomy satisfaction and the
costs of autonomy frustration dependent on individuals’ autonomy strength?
Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12372.
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-
determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of
Management, 42, 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058.
Vanhove-Meriaux, C., Martinent, G., & Ferrand (2018). Profiles of needs satisfaction
and thwarting in older people living at home: Relationships with well-being
and ill-being indicators. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 18, 470–478.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13205.
Wang, M. (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment
process: Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees’ psychological
well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.92.2.455.
Wang, M., Henkens, K., & van Solinge, H. (2011). Retirement adjustment: A review
of theoretical and empirical advancements. AmericanPsychologist, 66, 991–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022414.
Wetzel, M., Huxhold, O., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2015). Transition into retirement
affects life satisfaction: Short- and long-term development depends on last
labor market status and education. Social Indicators Research, 125, 991–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0862-4.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934.
Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and
life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
53–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028601.