Enhancing Well-Being in the Workplace:

Transcription

1 Enhancing Well-Being in the Workplace: The role of strengths use and basic needs fulfillment at work Y.C. de Rooij January August 2017 Supervisor 1: Dr. M. van Woerkom Supervisor 2: E.M. Kunst MSc

2 Abstract In the last decade, research started to focus more on positive psychology, and positive organizations (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Money, Hillenbrand & da Camara, 2009). This study builds upon this research field by giving insights in how well-being in the workplace can be enhanced, and the role of strengths use at work and basic needs fulfillment at work in order to do so. Specifically, this study examined whether fulfillment of the three basic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) partially mediates the relationship between strengths use at work and well-being at work. Data for this study was collected with an Experience Sampling Method (ESM). This means that participants answered a short questionnaire on their mobile phone 10 times a day for 5 days in a row. In total, data of 66 participants was collected. The results indicate that there is a positive partial mediating effect of fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work in the relationship between strengths use and well-being at work. Therefore, this study concludes highlighting the importance of stimulating and using strengths in the workplace. Stimulating and using employee strengths offers organizations an opportunity to higher employee s fulfillment of the basic needs and this indirect and directly enhances employee well-being. This in turn has additional beneficial outcomes for both organizations and employees, such as higher productivity, lower turnover rates and happy and healthy employees (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008; Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2002; Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Keywords: strengths use, basic needs fulfillment, autonomy, competence, relatedness, well-being. At the beginning of this decade research started to focus more on the positive side of psychology (Fredrickson, 2001; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive psychology is the study about positive emotions, positive characters, and positive institutions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This field of study examines energizing states, such as optimism, strengths, and fulfillment of basic psychological needs. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Findings in the research field of positive psychology are intended to complement, not replace, earlier research about human weaknesses, disorders and suffering (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). In the past few years, organizational behaviorists are applying the theory of positive psychology to the study about positive organizations and the best employee conditions (Money et al., 2009). Development of more positive organizations might increase the desire of an employee to self-realize and express their full capacities (Fineman, 2005). Moreover, focusing on positive topics rather than correcting negative matters in organizations brings benefits (e.g. wellbeing, satisfaction, performance), since happy employees are healthier, more successful and more 2

3 socially engaged (Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener, 2005). In this study, we will build upon this positive psychology theory by examining the positive linkage between strengths use, basic needs fulfillment, and well-being in the workplace. A key aspect of positive psychology are personal and psychological strengths of individuals (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan & Hurling, 2010). Linley (2008) gives the following explanation about strengths: a strength is a pre-existing capacity for a particular way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is authentic and energizing to the user, and enables optimal functioning, development and performance (p. 9). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) note the importance of strengths use within organizations by arguing that the key to flourishing organizations might be building and fostering employee strengths rather than repairing negative qualities of employees. Increasing individual s strengths use is assumed to generate higher feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Quinlan, Swain & Vella-Brodrick, 2011). This is based on the selfconcordance theory, that states that individuals want to achieve personal goals and are willing to put effort in achieving these goals (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). The human basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are personal goals and by using one s strengths individuals are more likely to achieve these goals (Hiemstra, 2013). In addition, Linley & Harrington (2006) speculate that higher levels of strengths use generate higher feelings of competence and autonomy, because when using strengths an individual is doing what he/she naturally does best. The three psychological basic needs (i.e. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) of individuals are defined by Deci and Ryan (1985) in the self-determination theory (SDT). First, the need for autonomy is the desire of an individual to be the origin or source of one s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When individuals perceive their behavior as self-endorsed they fulfilled the need for autonomy (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000). Second, the need for competence refers to an individual s experience of opportunities to practice, develop, and express their capacities. In other words, individuals need to feel effective in their actions (Skinner, 1995; White, 1959). The last basic need is relatedness. Relatedness is concerned with the feeling of being connected to people and the sense of belonging to a community or social milieu (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The three basic needs are assumed to have a positive influence on well-being. Earlier research on the self-determination theory found that the three basic needs influence individual s well-being in general (Heather, Knee, Canevello, and Lonsbary, 2007; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan, 2000). Moreover, Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004) found that the fulfillment of the basic needs at work is positively linked to well-being in the workplace. There are two arguments that support this positive relationship between basic needs fulfillment and well-being. Firstly, Deci and Ryan (1991) state that the three basic needs are essential nutriments for well- 3

4 being in any life domain. In other words, fulfillment of the basic needs is a necessary condition to experience well-being. Secondly, fulfillment of the basic needs elicits an energizing state and therefore subsequently enhance well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Conversely, if the three psychological needs are not satisfied it increases ill-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Hence, according to this reasoning, this study expects that basic needs fulfillment is positively associated with wellbeing in the workplace. Based on the earlier mentioned self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), we can expect a mediating effect of the fulfillment of the three basic needs in the relationship between strengths use and well-being (Hiemstra, 2013). The self-concordance theory states that individuals want to reach personal goals, and are willing to put effort in achieving these goals. In turn, when an individual reach his/her personal goal, this is assumed to positively influence his/her well-being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). When using strengths, individuals are more likely to reach their personal goals of fulfilling the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. If individuals reach their personal goals (i.e. fulfillment of basic needs) this has a positive effect on their well-being (Hiemstra, 2013). In this study, we examine if this mediating effect applies in the work context. Besides, the mediating linkage between strengths use and well-being at work, this study will also examine the direct linkage between strengths use and well-being. Earlier research theorized using one s strengths in general is energizing and authentic (Clifton & Anderson, 2002; Linley & Harrington, 2006) and when using strengths, individuals feel good about their selves, are better able to achieve things, and working toward fulfilling their potential (Linley & Harrington, 2006). Considering these outcomes of strengths use (i.e. feeling good, better able to achieve things, fulfilling potential), it is assumed that strengths use positively influence individual well-being (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2010). Recent research into strengths use and well-being confirms this assumption in a general context (Wood et al., 2011; Govindji & Linley, 2007). This study will examine this relationship in the work context. Overall, the purpose of this study is to gain insight into the following research question: To what extent does strengths use at work influence well-being at work, and does basic needs fulfillment at work mediate this relationship? Recent studies focus more on positive organizations and happy employees (Money et al., 2009). The aim of this positive psychology is to shift the emphasis away from what is wrong with people to what is right with people. Strengths use has become an important concept in the positive organization literature (Money et al., 2009), because of the assumption that employees only display excellent performance when they have opportunity to use their strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Earlier research found several positive outcomes of strengths use, such as building self- 4

5 confidence and positive affect (Wood et al., 2010). However, how strengths use influence basic needs fulfillment of employees and employee well-being and if basic needs fulfillment mediates the relationship between strengths use and well-being at work is not studied in prior research. Hence, this study continuous on the positive outcomes of strengths use within the positive organization literature. To examine these relationships, this study uses an Experience Sampling Method (ESM). ESM is defined as a method of data collection in which participants respond to repeated assessments at moments over the course of time while functioning within their natural settings (Scollon, Kim-Prieto, & Diener, 2003, p. 5). This means that participants report their current thoughts, feelings, and actions at a certain moment within the context of daily lives several times per day. The study variables (i.e. strengths use, fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and well-being) are thoughts, feelings and actions that fluctuate within individuals (Biswas-Diener, Kashan, & Minhas, 2011; Brown & Ryan, 2003). For instance, it is possible that a teacher experience well-being when teaching motivated students. However, the next hour the teacher s well-being decreases (e.g. feelings stressed, unhappy) because of students who are misbehaving (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, & Ilies, 2012). ESM is a good way to measure these fluctuations within individuals and allows to discuss results at moment level (Scollon et al., 2003). Moreover, ESM allows a better understanding of the contingencies of behavior, overcomes problems with memory biases and current affect (this higher the reliability of the study), and the questionnaire is answered in real-life and thus increasing ecological validity (Scollon et al., 2003). Strengths use at work and basic needs fulfillment at work Recent years, research started focusing on the positive aspects of human experience (Linley & Kauffman, 2007). This led to increased research into the concept of individual s strengths and general applications of strengths in work (Linley & Harrington, 2006; Linley & Harrington, 2005). A clear distinction can be made between possessing strengths and using strengths (Wood et al., 2010). Possessing more strengths than other individuals may relate to beneficial outcomes, however using one s strengths leads to even more beneficial outcomes (Wood et al., 2010; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). As mentioned before, earlier research argues that using one s strengths may have a positive effect on the fulfillment of individual s psychological basic needs (Quinlan et al., 2011; Linley & Harrington, 2006). Quinlan et al. (2011) assume that strengths use leads to encouraged feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness based on the self-concordance theory of Sheldon and Elliot (1999). Linley and Harrington (2006) speculate that using one s strengths generates feelings of 5

6 competence and autonomy because when using strengths individuals are doing what they naturally do best. In addition, based on the self-concordance theory of Sheldon and Elliot (1999), Linley, Nielsen, Gillet, and Biswas-Diener (2010) examined the linkage between strengths use and basic needs fulfillment and found evidence that using one s strengths lead to goal progress, and that in turn lead up to fulfillment of the basic needs. To further support the direct linkage between strengths use and autonomy we can use the SDT. According to the SDT, people experience autonomy when their behavior is willingly enacted and their actions are self-endorsed. Therefore, people feel most autonomous when they act with their authentic interest, values and desires (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1995). Authenticity is thus related to the basic need for autonomy. Govindji and Linley (2007) found evidence when individuals use their strengths, they experience authenticity. Therefore, this studies argues that strengths use is related to fulfillment of autonomy. To further support the linkage between strengths use and the need for competence and relatedness the broaden-and-build theory of Fredrickson (2004) can be used. Strengths use leads up to positive emotions, like excitement and joy (Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2016). The broadenand-build theory describes that through experiencing positive emotions people broaden their thoughts and actions, and build enduring personal resources (Fredrickson, 2013). By broadening thoughts and actions, people change and build knowledge and skills. Therefore, people become more knowledgeable and skillfully. The need for competence in this study is defined as the opportunity to practice and develop capacities. Practicing and developing individual capacities compromise skills and knowledge (Fukuda-Parr, Lopes, & Malik, 2002). Therefore, feeling more competent can be related to the experience of becoming more knowledgeable and skillful. Moreover, based on the broaden-and-build theory, by broadening thought and actions, people change and build new relationships (Fredrickson, 2013). Therefore, people become more socially integrated (Fredrickson, 2013). In this study the need for relatedness is defined as feeling connected to people and the sense of belonging to a community or social milieu. This definition is equivalent to feeling socially integrated of Fredrickson (2013). Therefore, the need relatedness can be related to the experience of becoming more socially integrated. All in all, based on the self-concordance theory, self-determination theory, and broadenand-build theory, this study expects a positive relationship between strengths use and the three basic needs. This leads to the following hypothesis: H1: Strengths use at work is positively associated with (a) fulfillment of autonomy at work, (b) fulfillment of competence at work, and (c) fulfillment of relatedness at work. 6

7 Basic needs fulfillment at work and well-being at work Research of the self-determination theory strongly suggest that fulfillment of the three basic needs predicts individual well-being (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). In this study, we examine well-being in the workplace. Well-being at work in this study is defined as the overall quality of an employee s experience and functioning at work (Warr 1987). Previous studies found a positive relationship between the three basic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and well-being (Heather et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2000). Moreover, Baard et al. (2004) found that fulfillment of autonomy, relatedness, and competence in the workplace was positively related to well-being at work. There are two arguments to support this positive linkage between basic needs fulfillment and well-being. Firstly, according to Ryan and Deci (2000a) fulfillment of autonomy, fulfillment of competence, and fulfillment of relatedness are energizing states that, if satisfied increases individual s well-being. However, if the three psychological needs are not satisfied it increases ill-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Secondly, Deci and Ryan (1991) defined the three basic needs as nutriments that are essential for human beings for growth, integrity, and well-being. Hence, the three basic needs specify the necessary conditions for well-being. Because each basic need describes a distinct psychological nutriment, Reis et al. (2000) state that each need (i.e. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) should have an independent opportunity to influence well-being. This leads to the following hypothesis: H2: (a) Fulfillment of autonomy at work, (b) fulfillment of competence at work, and (c) fulfillment of relatedness at work is positively associated with well-being at work. Strengths use at work and well-being at work Earlier research theorized that using one s strengths in general is energizing and authentic (Clifton & Anderson, 2002; Linley & Harrington, 2006) and when using strengths, individuals feel good about their selves, are better able to achieve things, and working toward fulfilling their potential (Linley & Harrington, 2006). Furthermore, Linley (2008) states in the earlier mentioned explanation of strengths that strengths are authentic and energizing, and enables development, optimal functioning, and performance. Taking these positive outcomes of strengths use in mind (e.g. feeling good about themselves, fulfilling potential, optimal functioning, feeling energized), Proctor et al. (2010) argues that therefore strengths use positively influence well-being. Recent research into strengths use and well-being confirms this assumption. Wood et al. (2011) argued that strengths use leads to energizing experiences and therefore elevated well-being and found in their study that individuals who reported greater use of strengths developed greater levels of wellbeing. 7

8 The study of Forest et al. (2012) examined the relationship between strengths use and wellbeing in the work context. However, they argue that strengths use at work leads to harmonious passion, and that in turn leads to well-being at work. This is based on earlier research of Mageau et al. (2009) who found that strengths use leads up to harmonious passion for work and research that found well-being should benefit from having harmonious passion at work (Carbonneau et al., 2008; Forest, Mageau, Sarrazin, & Morin, 2011; Lavigne, Forest, & Crevier-Braud, 2011). In this study, we examine the direct linkage between strengths use at work and well-being at work. This leads to the following hypothesis: H3: Strengths use at work is positively associated with well-being at work. Strengths use at work, basic needs fulfillment at work, and well-being at work The self-concordance theory states that when an individual has a personal goal, he/she is willing to put effort in achieving this goal, and when there is goal progress, this develops individual wellbeing (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). As mentioned earlier fulfillment of the three basic needs can be seen as personal goals, and using one s strengths is a way to better achieve these goals (Hiemstra, 2013). When making progress in fulfilling the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, an individual develops well-being. Based on this theory this study expects that the three basic needs mediate the relationship between strengths use at work and well-being at work. Summarized, it is expected that strengths use at work positively influences basic needs fulfillment at work, and basic needs fulfillment at work in turn leads to increased well-being at work. However, we expect a partial mediation effect of the three basic needs because it is also expected that strengths use at work positively influences well-being at work directly. This leads to the following hypothesis: H4: (a) Fulfillment of autonomy, (b) fulfillment of competence, and (c) fulfillment of relatedness at work partially and positively mediate the relationships between strengths use at work and well-being at work. 8

9 Figure 1. Conceptual model Method Procedure To test the conceptual model, the data from this study is obtained using experience sample method (ESM). This is a quantitative and explanatory research method. ESM is defined as a method of data collection in which participants respond to repeated assessments at moments over the course of time while functioning within their natural settings (Scollon et al., 2003, p. 5). The participants were personally approached, to inquire if they were willing to participate in this study. The participants who agreed to participate in this study received an with information about the study and the mobile application used for this study. The can be found in Appendix I. There was a file attached to this in which complementary information could be found about installing and using the mobile application. This research had a particular phasing that needs to be taken into consideration. At first, the participants completed an online questionnaire (Appendix II). This questionnaire contained questions concerning demographic data (e.g. gender, age, education level) and constructs that later were used to test the validity of the items used in this study. Secondly, to obtain the data for the variables in this study a mobile application (RealLifeExp) was used. After installing the mobile application an accompanying text provided additional information about the questionnaire. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix III. The questionnaire was only available in Dutch. This mobile application gave 10 random beeps (signals) per day between 7:30 and 22:30, 5 days in a row (one weekend day, four weekdays). When the application gave the beep, the short questionnaire had to be completed within fifteen minutes. After fifteen minutes the beep disappeared from the mobile phone and was a missing value in the study. After 5 days, the application automatically stopped giving signals. 9

10 Sample In total, 90 participants were willing to participate in this study and received the code to start the first questionnaire and for installing the mobile application. However, 11 of these 90 participants did not start the study due to problems with their mobile phone. In addition, at least one third of the beeps had to be answered (i.e. 17 out of 50 beeps) to have a reliable study (Delespaul, 1995). 69 out of the 79 participants answered 17 beeps or more. Moreover, there were 3 participants that only answered beep moments in private, hence not working moments. This study concentrates exclusively on work moments and therefore these 3 participants were excluded from the data. At the end, data of 66 respondents were collected and these 66 participants had a total of 740 beep moments. These respondents were Dutch speaking, between 18 years and 65 years old, and working. Furthermore, all respondents had the possibility to use their mobile phone during work. The respondents were sampled by convenience, like friends, family, acquaintances, and colleagues. However, we strived to have a good reflection of the Dutch labor force. This means we tried to have equal groups in gender, age, education categories, and fulltime/part time percentages while selecting participants. The characteristics of the sample of this study and the Dutch labor force are described in Table 1. CBS (2016) published the characteristics of the Dutch labor force of The Dutch labor force consist of 53.6% men and 46.4% women. The average age of the Dutch labor force is 42.2 years. Furthermore, the level of education is divided in low education (22.4%), intermediate education (42.6%) and high education (35.0%). Lastly, Eurostat (2016) published that 46.6% of the Dutch work force works part time and 53.4% fulltime. The sample of this study consisted of 30.3% men and 69.7% women. The respondents were on average 35.7 years old. Regarding education, 4.5% of the respondents had an intermediate vocational education (specialist), 4.5% had a pre-university education, 10.6% had a master degree, 13.6% had a higher general secondary education, 18.2% had an intermediate vocational education, and finally 48.5% of the respondents had a bachelor degree. Furthermore, 3.0% of the respondents were declared unfit for work, 6.1% were student who worked part time, 7.6% worked part time (less than 20 hours a week), 25.8% worked part time (between 20 and 36 hours a week), and 57.6% of the respondents worked fulltime (more than 36 hours a week). Comparing the sample of this study and the Dutch labor force, there was a higher percentage women participating in the study (69.7%) than there are in the Dutch labor force (46.4%). Hence, there were more women who participated in this study than there are in the Dutch labor force. To compare age, the average age of the study was 35.7 years old, and in the Dutch labor force the average age is Hence, there is a difference of 6 years. In the Dutch labor force 10

11 22.4% has a low education, however in this study no participant had a low education (0%). 42.6% of the Dutch labor force has an intermediate education, in this study that percentage was 40.8%. Furthermore, in this study 59.1% had a high education level, and in the Dutch labor force 35% has a high education level. Hence, there were differences between the Dutch labor force and the sample of this study with all levels of education background. Lastly, the fulltime and part time percentages of the Dutch labor force are close to the percentages of this study. In this study 39.5% worked part time and 57.6% worked fulltime. In the Dutch labor force 46.6% works part time and 53.4% works fulltime. Table 1. Demographic characteristics Characteristic Sample Dutch labor force Gender (male) Average age (yr.) Education: - Low (e.g. Primary education) - Middle (e.g. Higher general secondary education, secondary vocational education, pre-university education) - High (e.g. Bachelor degree, master degree) Work: - Fulltime - Part time - (Partially) Declared unfit for work 30.3% % 59.1% 57.6% 39.5% 3.0% 53.5% % 42.6% 35.0% 53.4% 46.6% - Measures To collect the data, we used a short questionnaire with scales for strengths use, fulfillment of autonomy, fulfillment of competence, fulfillment of relatedness and well-being. ESM questionnaires usually are short to keep the response burden reasonable and motivate the participants to respond regularly for a couple of days (Fisher & To, 2012). When the questionnaire has to be answered several times a day, and several days in a row, the time to fill in the questionnaire should not last longer than three minutes (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Researchers must make their own decisions about which items to include in the shorted scales, since there are hardly any validated short scales for use in ESM (Fisher & To, 2012). In 11

12 this study, the items on the scale strengths use were based on the Strengths Use Behavior Scale of Van Woerkom et al. (2016). The items on the scales for fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were based on the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale of Chen et al. (2015). Lastly, the items on the scale well-being were based on the Mental Health Continuum Short Form Scale of Lamers, Westerhof, Bohlmeijer, Ten Klooster and Keyes (2011). The items used to measure the variables in this study are selected because they best covered the content of the variables. The items of the questionnaires were in Dutch. The validity of the scales was tested by correlating the items of the short questionnaire with the data of the well-validated online questionnaires: Strengths Use Behavior Scale (Van Woerkom et al., 2016), Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 2015), and the Mental Health Continuum Short Form scale (Lamers et al., 2011). To confirm the validity, the items of the short questionnaire had to correlate positively significantly with the online wellvalidated questionnaire data (Trochim, Donnelly & Arora, 2016). The correlation matrices can be found in Appendix IV. Reliability was evaluated based on Cronbach s alpha. The Cronbach s alpha ideally should be above.7 (DeVellis, 2012). However due to the short scales (e.g. less than ten items per construct) it is common to find a quite low value of Cronbach s alpha (e.g. less than five) (Pallant, 2013). When the Cronbach s alpha is below.7 due to the short scale, it can be more appropriate to report the mean inter-item correlation for the items (Pallant, 2013). An acceptable range for the mean inter-item correlation is between.15 and.5 (Clark & Watson, 1995). Strengths use. To measure strengths use we used 2-items out of The Strengths Use Behavior Scale (Van Woerkom et al., 2016). This scale originally consists of 6-items and had a Cronbach s alpha of.930. The 2 items we used for the strengths use scale were: I use my strengths and I use my core qualities. The items of this scale were measured on a seven-point scale (not at all very). Both items correlated positive significantly with the Strengths Use Behavior Scale (Van Woerkom et al., 2016) of the online questionnaire (r =.330, p <.01; r =.352, p <.01). Cronbach s alpha was.712, no additional items were deleted, since they all contributed to the scale. Fulfillment of Autonomy. To measure fulfillment of autonomy, we used 2-items of the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (Chen et al., 2015). This scale originally consists of 8-items measuring fulfillment of autonomy and had a Cronbach s alpha of.787. The 2 items we used for the fulfillment of autonomy scale were: I choose to do this myself, and This feels like an obligation (reversed item). The items were measured on a seven-point scale (not at all very). The items both correlated positive significantly with the fulfillment of autonomy items in the Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale of the online questionnaire (r =.191, p <.01; 12

13 r =.234, p <.01). Cronbach s alpha for the fulfillment of autonomy scale was.308. This alpha was relatively low, however the inter-item correlation mean was.189, hence the items remained in the analysis. Fulfillment of Competence. To measure fulfillment of competence, we used 2-items of the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (Chen et al., 2015). This scale originally consists of 8-items measuring fulfillment of competence and had a Cronbach s alpha of.743. The 2 items we used for the fulfillment of competence scale were: I am good at this, and I doubt if I can do this (reversed item). The items were measured on a seven-point scale (not at all very). Both items correlated positive significantly with the items of competence in the Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale (Chen et al., 2015) of the online questionnaire (r =.365, p <.01; r =.443, p <.01). Cronbach s alpha for the fulfillment of competence scale was.403. This alpha was relatively low, however the inter-item correlation mean was.263, hence the items remained in the analysis. Fulfillment of Relatedness. To measure relatedness, we used 3-items of the Basic Psychological Needs Scale (Chen et al., 2015). This scale originally consists of 8-items measuring relatedness and had a Cronbach s alpha of.771. The 3 items we used for the fulfillment of relatedness scale were: I feel appreciated, I feel part of this company, and I feel misunderstood (reversed item). The items were measured on a seven-point scale (not at all very). The items all correlated positive significantly with the items of relatedness in the Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale of the online questionnaire (r =.289, p <.01; r =.313, p <.01; r =.265, p <.01). Cronbach s alpha for the fulfillment of relatedness scale was.674. However, when the item I feel misunderstood was deleted, the Cronbach s alpha of this scale increased with.104. Therefore, this item was deleted from the fulfillment of relatedness scale and the increased Cronbach s alpha was.778. Well-being. To measure well-being, we used 5-items based on the Mental Health Continuum Short Form scale (Lamers et al., 2011). This scale originally consists of 14-items and had a Cronbach s alpha of.925. The 5 items we used for the well-being scale were: I feel inspired, I am satisfied with myself, I pursue my goals, I would rather be alone (reversed item), and I find this company pleasant. The items were measured on a seven-point scale (not at all very). The items all correlated positive significantly with the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (Lamers et al., 2011) of the online questionnaire (r =.329, p <.01; r =.240, p <.01; r =.301, p <.01; r =206, p <.01; r =.246, p <.01). Cronbach s alpha of the well-being scale was.657. This alpha was relatively low, however the mean inter-item correlation was.285, hence all items remained in the analysis. 13

14 Analysis The data from this study was tested and analyzed using SPSS (version 23). First of all, the data was checked. There were some technical errors in the data. The technical errors (e.g. participants who received 100 beeps instead of 50 beeps) were eliminated from the data. Furthermore, there were variables that had to be recoded or merged. Moreover, this study is solely on work moments and therefore a filter needed to be included in the data. Lastly, the beep moments with a mean of 3 or 4 were checked if participants did not easily answer all items of that moment the same (e.g. all items answered with 4). The data in this study originated from beep moments that were nested within individuals. To analyze the within person differences, we made person-centered scales. This means that we calculated the means per person and then subtracted the person mean from the beep moments. This resulted in variables that reflected the fluctuations within persons. Thereafter, we did a linear regression analysis with these person-centered variables. The level of significance used for this study was p <.05. To test the hypotheses of this study, PROCESS analysis of Hayes (2013) is used. The conceptual model of this study has a mediating effect, therefore model 4 of the procedure of Hayes is used for this study. Preacher and Hayes (2008) state that mediation can be determined when the independent variable is significant on the mediating variable, and when the mediating variable is significant on the dependent variable. In addition, for partial mediating the independent and dependent variable should have a significant effect. For this study this means that strengths use had to be significant on the three basic needs (X M), the three basic needs had to be significant on well-being (M Y), and strengths use had to be significant on well-being (X Y). Furthermore, Hayes uses bootstrapping to estimate the conditional direct and indirect effect. With bootstrapping, it was tested if the direct (X Y) and indirect (X M Y) effect was different from zero. If zero was not in the interval, the direct and indirect effect was different from zero. The analysis was performed three times, for every mediator (fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness) once. In addition, when analyzing one mediator, we controlled for the other two mediating variables in the analysis. Results Descriptive statistics Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics, as well as the Pearson Correlations for the personcentered study variables based on beep moments that participants were working. Notable is that the mean of well-being at work is.018. This is due to the fact that there were two items in this 14

15 scale that were only measured when the participants were not alone ( I would rather be alone (reversed item), and I find this company pleasant ). Therefore, the answers of the other three items in this scale, when participants could have company but also be alone, are deleted out of the scale. Hence when deleting beep moments of participants, the mean of the scale cannot be zero anymore. As expected, strengths use at work is significantly positively correlated with fulfillment of autonomy at work (r =.367, p <.01), competence at work (r =.313, p <.01) and relatedness at work (r =.287, p <.01), Furthermore, as expected, fulfillment of autonomy at work (r =.409, p <.01), competence at work (r =.309, p <.01) and relatedness at work (r =.523, p <.01) is significantly positively correlated with well-being at work. Moreover, strength use at work is significantly positively correlated with well-being at work (r =.431, p <.01). Lastly, fulfillment of relatedness, autonomy and competence at work correlates significantly with each other. However, this makes sense since these variables are all measuring basic needs fulfillment. Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables (person-centered) M SD N Strengths use at work Autonomy at work ** - Competence at work **.282** - Relatedness at work **.263**.220** - Well-being at work **.409**.309**.523** - ** Correlation is significant at p <.01 (two-tailed). Hypothesis testing Table 3 presents the results of the PROCESS analysis of Hayes of the relationship of strengths use on well-being mediated by fulfillment of autonomy while controlling for fulfillment of competence and relatedness. The results show that strengths use positively significantly influence fulfillment of autonomy (b =.276, p <.01), this is in line with hypothesis 1a. This means that using strengths leads to higher levels of fulfillment of autonomy. Moreover, there is a positive and significant relationship between fulfillment of autonomy and well-being (b =.155, p <.01). This is in accordance with hypothesis 2a; fulfillment of autonomy is positively significantly associated with well-being at work. The direct relationship of strengths use on well-being is positive and significant (b =.179, p <.01). This is in line with hypothesis 3. Lastly, the indirect effect of 15

16 strengths use on well-being mediated by fulfillment of autonomy is positively significant (b =.043, p <.01). This means, the higher levels of strengths use, the higher level of autonomy fulfillment, which in turn leads to higher levels of well-being. The direct and indirect effect are significant (bootstrap different from zero), hence in line with hypothesis 4a. Table 3. Results Process analysis of Hayes of the relationship of strengths use on well-being mediated by autonomy Outcome Coeff SE T P LLCI ULCI Autonomy Constant Strengths use Competence Relatedness <.001 <.001 < Well-being Constant Autonomy < Well-being Constant Competence < Relatedness < Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI Direct effect < Strengths use on well-being Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect Strengths use on well-being via autonomy Note. Coeff = regression coefficient; SE = standard error; t = t-statistic; p = p-value; LLCI = lower levels of the confidence interval; ULCI = upper levels of the confidence interval Table 4 presents the results of the PROCESS analysis of the relationship of strengths use on wellbeing mediated by fulfillment of competence while controlling for fulfillment of autonomy and relatedness. Hypothesis 1b is confirmed; strengths use positively significantly affects fulfillment of competence (b =.196, p <.01). Higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels of fulfillment of competence. In addition, competence is positively significantly associated with well-being (b =.089, p <.01), this confirms hypothesis 2b. This means that higher levels of fulfillment of competence is related to higher levels on well-being. Moreover, the direct relationship of strengths use on well-being is positively significantly (b =.179, p <.01). Meaning that higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels on well-being. This is in line with hypothesis 3. Lastly, the 16

17 indirect effect of strengths use on well-being mediated by competence is significant (b =.017, p <.01). Hence, the direct and indirect effect are significant (bootstrapping different from zero). This means that fulfillment of competence partially mediates strengths use on well-being. This is in accordance with hypothesis 4b; higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels of competence, and this in turn leads to higher levels of well-being. Table 4. Results Process analysis of Hayes of the relationship of strengths use on well-being mediated by competence Outcome Coeff SE T P LLCI ULCI Competence Constant Strengths use Relatedness Autonomy < < Well-being Constant Competence Well-being Constant Relatedness < Autonomy < Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI Direct effect Strengths use on well-being < Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect Strengths use on well-being via competence Note. Coeff = regression coefficient; SE = standard error; t = t-statistic; p = p-value; LLCI = lower levels of the confidence interval; ULCI = upper levels of the confidence interval Table 5 presents the results of the PROCESS analysis of the relationship of strengths use on wellbeing mediated by fulfillment of relatedness while controlling for fulfillment of autonomy and competence. Firstly, strengths use is positively significantly related to fulfillment of relatedness (b =.202, p <.01), this confirms hypothesis 1c. This means that higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels of fulfillment of relatedness. Secondly, relatedness is positively significantly associated with well-being (b =.302, p <.01), this is in accordance with hypothesis 2c. Meaning that higher levels of relatedness fulfillment lead to higher levels of well-being. Thirdly, the direct relationship of strengths use on well-being is positive and significant (b =.179, p <.01), this 17

18 confirms hypothesis 3; higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels of well-being. Lastly, the indirect effect of strengths use on well-being mediated by relatedness fulfillment is positive and significant (b =.061, p <.01). Hence, higher levels of strengths use leads to higher levels of relatedness fulfillment, and that in turn leads to higher levels of well-being. The direct and indirect effect are positively significantly (bootstrapping different from zero). Therefore, there is a partial mediation, and this is in line with hypothesis 4c. Table 5. Results Process analysis of Hayes of the relationship of strengths use on well-being mediated by relatedness Outcome Coeff SE T P LLCI ULCI Relatedness Constant Strengths use Autonomy Competence <.001 < Well-being Constant Relatedness < Well-being Constant Autonomy < Competence < Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI Direct effect Strengths use on well-being < Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect Strengths use on well-being via relatedness Note. Coeff = regression coefficient; SE = standard error; t = t-statistic; p = p-value; LLCI = lower levels of the confidence interval; ULCI = upper levels of the confidence interval 18

19 Discussion and conclusion The aim of this research was to provide insights in the following research question: To what extent does strengths use at work influence well-being at work, and does basic needs fulfillment at work mediate this relationship?. This is examined by using Experience Sampling Method among 66 Dutch employed participants. These participants filled in a short questionnaire 10 times a day for 5 days in a row via a mobile application. The results of this study show fulfillment of autonomy, competence and relatedness at work partially mediate the relationship between strengths use at work and well-being at work positively. Several studies argue that strengths use leads to higher feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Quinlan et al., 2011; Linley & Harrington, 2006; Linley et al., 2010). Linley and Harrington (2006) argue that this relationship can be explained because when using strengths individuals are doing what they naturally do best. Quinlan et al. (2011) argued that this relationship exists based on the self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). However, this linkage was not confirmed in the literature. This study confirmed the relationship between strengths use and fulfillment of autonomy, fulfillment of competence, and fulfillment of relatedness in the workplace. In addition, due to the within-person analysis of this study, I can state that at the specific moments when individuals use more of their strengths at work, individuals will immediately also experience higher levels of fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work. Moreover, there is evidence in the literature that fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness separately lead to well-being (Heather et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2000). This linkage was also found in the work context (Baard et al., 2004). In this study, we confirmed the linkage between fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and well-being at the workplace. Earlier research of Reis et al. (2000) found that on a day that individuals experienced higher fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the level of well-being of individuals that same day was higher. This study went one step further and found that at moments when individuals experience higher levels of fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, individuals will experience in that same moment higher levels of well-being. The literature proved that there is a direct linkage between strengths use in general and well-being in general (Wood et al, 2010; Govindji & Linley, 2007). Furthermore, Forest et al. (2012) argued that strengths use in the workplace lead up to harmonious passion and that in turn lead to employee well-being. This study confirmed the direct linkage between strengths use at work and well-being at work. Ryan (1995) state that basic need fulfillment may differ per context. Therefore, it is useful for the existing literature that this linkage is confirmed in a different context 19

20 (i.e. work context). Besides, earlier research confirmed the linkage with a cross-sectional research design. This study found that at a moment when individuals use more strengths, individuals experience higher levels of well-being at that same moment. Based on the self-concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), this study expected that basic needs fulfillment at work partially mediate the relationship between strengths use at work and well-being at work. The results of this research confirm this expectation; fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work partially mediate strengths use at work and wellbeing at work. Specifically, at moments when an employee uses their strengths to a larger extent, this leads to higher levels of basic needs fulfillment at that moment, and this in turn leads to higher levels of well-being at that moment. In addition, at a moment when employees use more of strengths this immediately leads to higher levels of well-being at work. This provides existing literature insights in the linkage between strengths use and well-being, and the role of basic needs fulfillment in this relationship. Limitations and future research Within the study there are several limitations that need to be considered. The first limitation of this research is that the sampling method used for this study is convenient sampling. Meaning that the participants of this study are individuals that are in the personal network of the researchers. Furthermore, although we strived to have a sample that was representative for the Dutch labor force, there were differences between the Dutch workforce and the sample of this study. Firstly, there were more women participating in this study (69.6%), then there are in the Dutch labor force (46.4%). Secondly, there was a difference in average age of 6.9 years. Thirdly, in the sample of this study 17.4% had a low education level, whereas in the Dutch labor force 22.4% is low educated. 25.4% had an intermediate education level in the sample of this study, and 42.6% has an intermediate education level in the Dutch labor force. Lastly, in the Dutch labor force 35% of the people is high educated, and in this study 57.3% had a high education level. From earlier research, we know that women typically have higher strength scores than men (Linley & Page, 2007). In addition, women report greater job satisfaction and well-being at work than men (Wood, Rhodes & Whelan, 1989). Moreover, older employees report significantly lower well-being than younger employees (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001). Taking this in consideration, the differences between the Dutch workforce and the sample of this study could affect the generalizability of the study, since it need to be considered if the sample is representative for the entire population (Bryman, 2001; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). To improve the generalizability in future research, random sampling can be used or a convenient sample that is closer related to the characteristics of 20

21 the Dutch labor force. To find a sample that better reflect the characteristics of the Dutch labor force, more time can be taken for sampling. Secondly, although this research used an experience sampling method and no one-time questionnaire (i.e. cross-sectional study), this study is carried out over a short period of time. It is difficult to make causal inference, since the data is only from 5 days. The results may limit the conclusions about the direction of the relationships. Earlier research measured well-being for 4 months in a row (Brunstein, 1993) or 2 times a year (Reinboth & Duda, 2006) to see if well-being changes over time. For future research, a longitudinal research could be beneficial to go more in depth. Moreover, due to the frequency of answering the same questionnaire, rapidly answering some beep moments due to pressure in daily life, and constantly answering all variables on the same seven-point scale, satisficing can occur. Optimal answering questions involves cognitive work and people can lose motivation to keep thinking and processing the questions (Cannell, Miller, and Oksenberg, 1981). As results of losing motivation, satisficing can occur meaning that people are filling in answers without knowing what they answer (Holbrook, Green, and Krosnich, 2003). At the beginning of the 5 days, participants were probably motivated to answer all beep moments, however some participants may lose motivation after a few days to carry out the cognitive process of answering beep moments. Hence, this could result in answering the items without thinking. To prevent this as much as possible in this study, participants could win a gift card. However, only participants who finished both the online questionnaire and 5 days short questionnaire had the chance to win a gift card. By providing rewards, the motivation and response rate of questionnaires can be improved (Nulty, 2008). Furthermore, Fisher and To (2012) argue that it is important in ESM research that the time frame over which the respondents report is defined in the items. In this study, we wanted the items answered in the present moment. This was not clear in several items of this study (e.g I use my strengths and I am satisfied with myself. An example for defining the time frame of an item is: At this moment, I use my strengths. For forthcoming studies, it can be useful to define the time frame of the items clearer. Lastly, the variable strengths use in this study is examined with little information on what strengths and core qualities are. It can be the case that the participants of this study were not aware of their own strengths and core qualities. The online questionnaire Strengths Use Behavior (Van Woerkom et al., 2016) contained a short explanation about strengths, however it can be the case that participants could not remember this when participating in the mobile application 21

22 questionnaire. It could be useful for future research to shortly describe strengths again before answering the strengths use items in the mobile application. Practical implications There are several practical implications based on the results of this research. This study gives organizations insights in how strengths use at work has positive outcomes on the fulfillment of autonomy, competence and relatedness at work. Furthermore, how strengths use has positive outcomes on well-being at work. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) state that the key to flourishing organizations might be building and fostering positive qualities rather than repairing negative ones. This research provides further insights in the importance of knowing and using employee s strengths in organizations. Therefore, it is useful for organizations to stimulate employees in using strengths rather than trying to repair weaknesses. Van Woerkom and Meyers (2014) call this a strengthsbased climate. There are several ways to create a strengths-based climate. First of all, this can be done by making an adjustment to the classic performance appraisal. The classic performance appraisal is often about the weaknesses of employees and how to repair them, while in the strengths-based climate the performance appraisal should be focusing on the collaborative evaluation of employee strengths and making a collaborative planning of how the employee can apply his/her strengths at work (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011). Budworth, Latham, and Manroop (2015) call this a feed forward interview. These are dialogues as replacement of the appraisal, where the focus lies on employee s strengths and successes (Budworth, Latham & Manroop, 2015). Secondly, to create a strengths-based climate organizations can provide training and development practices that are aimed at amplifying employee strengths, rather than repairing employee weaknesses, and practices that support the drive of employees to use their full potential (Linley & Harrington, 2006a). Moreover, strengths of employees can be identified and appreciated by informal feedback from managers or coworkers when an employee effectively uses one s strengths (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011). Another informal way to develop strengths and stimulate strengths use is by intentional and spontaneous forms of learning on the job deriving from tasks characteristics and social interaction (Doornbos, Bolhuis & Simons, 2004). Lastly, organizations can set up a job design that allows employees to maximize the use of their strengths. This can be done by, for example task allocation or complementary partnering (Linley & Harrington, 2006). 22

23 Hence, by creating a strengths-based climate within organizations, the use of employee s strengths will increase, and the results of this study shows that this positively influence fulfillment of the basic needs and well-being of employees. From earlier research, we know that fulfillment of the basic needs positively influence intrinsic motivation and vigor of employees (Krapp, 2005; Van den Broeck et al., 2008), and negatively influence emotional exhaustion at work (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Moreover, from earlier research we know that higher levels of employee well-being are positively associated with profitability, productivity, customer satisfaction level, and happier employees (Harter et al., 2002; Robertson & Cooper, 2011), and negatively associated with turnover rates and sickness-absence levels (Harter et al., 2002; Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Hence, stimulating strengths use in the workplace has considerable beneficial outcomes for both employees and organizations. 23

24 Reference list Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & 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(10), DOI: /j tb02690.x Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T.B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), DOI: / Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human Resource Management Review, 21, DOI: /j.hrmr Budworth, M., Latham, G.P., & Manroop, L. (2015). Looking Forward to Performance Improvement: A Field Test of the Feedforward Interview for Performance Management. Human Resource Management, 54 (1), DOI: /hrm Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), DOI: / Brunstein, J. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), DOI: / Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D.O. (2001). Now, Discover your Strengths. New York, NY: The Free Press. Cannell, C.F., Miller, P.V., & Oksenberg, L. (1981). Research on Interview Techniques. Sociological Methodology, 12, DOI: / Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R.J., Fernet, C., & Guay, F. (2008) The role of passion for teaching in intra and interpersonal outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 100(4), CBS. (2016). Beroepsbevolking [labor force]. Accessed at March , from 24

25 CBS. (2016). Werkzame Beroepsbevolking [Working population]. Accessed at June , from NL Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E.L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength accros four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), DOI: /s Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), DOI: / Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths, in academics, career, and beyond. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, DOI: / (85) Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (pp ). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Delespaul, P.A.E.G. (1995). Assessing schizophrenia in daily life: the experience method sampling. (doctoral thesis) Retrieved from fedora/get/guid:3b3255e1-8ee c3b-9f093afb355d/asset1 DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Doornbos, A., Bolhuis, S., & Simons, P. R. J. (2004). Modeling work-related learning on the basis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: A non-educational perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 3, DOI: / Eurostat (2016). Part-time employment rate. Accessed at June , from 25

26 Fineman, S. (2005). On Being Positive: Concerns and Counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), DOI: /AMR Fisher, C.D., & To, M.L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), DOI: /job.1803 Fukuda-Parr, S., Lopes, C., & Malik, K. (2002). Capacity for development: New Solutions to Old Problems. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Forest, J., Mageau, G.A., Sarrazin, C., & Morin, E.M. (2011) Work is my passion : The different affective, behavioural, and cognitive consequences of harmonious and obsessive passion toward work. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 28(1), Forest, J., Mageau, G.A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, E., Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G.L. (2012). Harmonious passion as an explanation of the relation between signature srengths use and well-being at work: Test of an intervention program. Human Relations, 0(0), DOI: / Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, DOI: / X Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359 (1449), DOI: /rstb Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. DOI: /B Govindji, R., & Linley, P.A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for Strengths Coaching and Coaching Psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Keyes, C.L.M. (2002). Well-being in the workplace and its 26

27 relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C.L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Ed.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp ). DOI: / Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Heather, P., Knee, C.R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The Role of Need Fulfillment in Relationship Functioning and Well-Being: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psgychology, 92(3), DOI: / Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hiemstra, D. (2013). De Sterke-Kanten-Benadering: Persoonlijke kwaliteiten als hefboom voor verandering. In E. Bohlmeijer, L. Bolier, G. Westerhof, & J. A. Walburg (Eds.), Handboek positieve psychologie. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Boom. Holbrook, A.L., Green, M.C., & Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Telephone Versus Face-To-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondents Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, DOI: / Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), DOI: /j.learninstruc La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Within-Person Variation in Security of Attachment: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Attachment, Need Fulfillment, and Well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), DOI: // Lamers, S.M.A., Westerhof, G.J., Bohlmeijer, E.T., ten Klooster, P.M., & Keyes, C.L.M. (2011). 27

28 Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHCSF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), DOI: /jclp Lavigne, G.L., Forest, J., & Crevier-Braud, L. (2011). Passion at work and burnout: A two-study test of the mediating role of flow experiences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(4), DOI: / X Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths in yourself and others. Coventry, England: CAPP Press. Linley, P.A., & Harrington, S. (2005). Positive Psychology and Coaching Psychology: Perspectives on intergration. The Coaching Psychologist, 1, Linley, P.A., & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths Coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), Linley, P. A., & Harrington, S. (2006a). Strengths coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, Linley, P.A., & Kauffman, C. (2007). Positive coaching psychology: Integrating the science of positive psychology with the practice of coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 5 8. Linley, P.A., Nielsen, K.M., Gillet, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), Linley, P.A., & Page, N. (2007). Positive approaches to human resource management: Outlines of a strengths-based organization. Personal Führung, 10, Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), DOI: / Mageau, G.A., Vallerand, R.J., Charest, J., Salvy, S., Lacaille, N., Bouffard, T., & Koestner, R. 28

29 (2009) On the development of harmonious and obsessive passion: The role of autonomy support, activity valuation, and identity processes. Journal of Personality 77(3), Meyers, M.C., & van Woerkom, M.J. (2016). Effects of a Strengths Intervention on General and Work-Related Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Positive Affect. Journal of Happiness, DOI: /s x Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., & da Camara, N. (2009). Putting positive psychology to work in organisations. Journal of General Management, 34(3), DOI: / Nulty, D.D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3). DOI: / Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. New York, NY: Open University Press. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Gender Differences in Self-Concept and Psychological Well- Being in Old Age: A Meta-Analysis. The Journals of Gerontology, 56(4), DOI: /geronb/56.4.P195 Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), DOI: /BRM Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P.A. (2010). Strengths Use as a Predictor of Well-Being and Health-Related Quality of Life. Journal of Hapiness Studies, 12(1), DOI: /s Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2011). Character Strengths Interventions: Building on What We Know for Improved Outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), DOI: /s Reinboth, M., & Duda, J. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Psychology of Sport 29

30 and Exercise, 7(3), DOI: /j.psychsport Reis, H.T., Sheldon, K.M., Gable, S.L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), DOI: / Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, England: Sage. Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and Happiness at Work. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Ryan, R.M. (1995). Psychological Needs and the Facilitation of Integrative Processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), DOI: /j tb00501.x Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, DOI: /ceps Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000a). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), DOI: X Ryan, R.M., & La Guardia, J.G. (2000). What is being optimized?: Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. In Qualls, S.H., & Abeles, N. Psychology and the aging revolution: How we adapt to longer life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scollon, C.N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience Sampling: Promises and Pitfalls, Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), DOI: /A: Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihakyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), DOI: / X Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress: 30

31 Empirical Validation of Interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), DOI: / X Sheldon, K.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal Striving, Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well- Being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), DOI: / Skinner, E.A. (1995). Perceived Control, Motivation, & Coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Trochim, W.M., Donnelly, J.P., & Arora, K. (2016). Research Methods: The Essential Knowledge Base. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22 (3), DOI: / Van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M.C. (2014). My Strengths Count! Effects of a Strengths-Based Psychological Climate on Positive Affect and Job Performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), DOI: /hrm Van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A.B., De Beer, L.T., & Rothmann, S. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology DOI: / X Warr, P.B. (1987). Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), DOI: /h Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T.B., & Hurling, R. (2010). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study 31

32 and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, DOI: /j.paid Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex Differences in Positive Well-Being: A Consideration of Emotional Style and Marital Status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), DOI: / Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., & Ilies, R. (2012). Everyday working life: Explaining withinperson fluctuations in employee well-being. Human Relations, 65(9), DOI: /

33 Appendix I: to participants Beste deelnemer, Allereerst, hartelijk dank dat u deel wilt nemen aan dit onderzoek. In deze mail zullen wij een instructie geven over hoe het onderzoek zal verlopen. Dit onderzoek kan op twee momenten in de week starten, namelijk op een maandag of zaterdag. De mogelijke startdata zijn: 27 maart, 1 april, 3 april, 8 april, 10 april, 15 april en 17 april. De eerste dag start u met de eerste online vragenlijst van circa 15 minuten, die u kunt starten via onderstaande link. Link vragenlijst 1: Om toegang te krijgen tot de vragenlijst, dient u het volgend persoonlijk nummer in te voeren: Persoonlijk nummer:. Na het invullen van deze vragenlijst, kunt u door het volgen van bijgevoegde handleiding de mobiele dagboekapplicatie downloaden en installeren. Er wordt tijdens de installatie opnieuw gevraagd naar uw persoonlijke nummer. Ervaart u bij de installatie of de vragenlijst problemen, laat het mij dan zo snel mogelijk weten. De notificaties voor het invullen van de dagboekvragenlijst starten de dag na de installatie van de applicatie (dag 2). Gedurende vijf dagen zullen er tien notificaties per dag komen, op willekeurige momenten tussen en uur. Het invullen van deze vragen zal ongeveer één minuut van uw tijd kosten. De vragen zijn bedoeld hoe u zich voelt en wat u doet op dat moment, niet eerder op de dag. Na de melding heeft u 15 minuten de tijd om te antwoorden. Daarna zal de vragenlijst voor deze notificatie niet meer beschikbaar zijn. Het is voor ons onderzoek van belang dat er op zoveel mogelijk notificaties wordt gereageerd. Na vijf dagen zal de applicatie automatisch stoppen met het versturen van notificaties. Daarmee is fase 1 van dit onderzoek afgerond. Na ongeveer vijf weken zult u een vervolgmail van ons ontvangen met daarin de link naar de tweede en laatste vragenlijst, van circa 15 minuten. Hierna is het onderzoek afgerond. Heeft u verder nog vragen, neem dan contact op. Alvast hartelijk bedankt! Met vriendelijke groet, Yvonne de Rooij 33

34 Appendix II: Questionnaire for demographics and validity 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 Appendix III: Questionnaire Mobile Application 56

57 57

58 58

59 59

60 60

61 61