Time and Money Trade-Offs Shape Major Life Decisions

Transcription

1 Time and Money Trade-Offs Shape Major Life Decisions Ashley V. Whillans Alice Lee-Yoon Elizabeth W. Dunn Working Paper

2 Time and Money Trade-Offs Shape Major Life Decisions Ashley V. Whillans Harvard Business School Alice Lee-Yoon University of British Columbia Elizabeth W. Dunn University of British Columbia Working Paper Copyright 2018 by Ashley V. Whillans, Alice Lee-Yoon, and Elizabeth W. Dunn Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author.

3 1 Time and money trade-offs shape major life decisions Ashley V. Whillans 1,2 Alice Lee-Yoon 1 Elizabeth W. Dunn 1 University of British Columbia 1 Harvard Business School 2 Word Count: 746 of 750 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Ashley V. Whillans awhillans@hbs.edu Negotiations, Organizations, and Markets Cambridge, MA Harvard Business School

4 2 Abstract How do the trade-offs that people make between time and money shape major life decisions? Previous research suggests that the tendency to prioritize time over money is a stable orientation that influences day-to-day decision-making and is associated with greater subjective well-being. Yet, nothing is known about whether prioritizing time over money shapes consequential decisions and long-term happiness. To shed light on this question, we tracked a large cohort of graduating students across two years (N=822). Students who valued time over money in their senior year of college (T1) were more likely to make intrinsically rewarding career choices and were happier two years after graduation (T2), even after controlling for T1 happiness. This study is the first to show that people s chronic orientations to value time over money can shape their major life decisions with implications for long-term trajectories of subjective well-being. Keywords: Money, Time, Trade-offs, Subjective well-being

5 3 Worldwide, people feel increasingly pressed for time and money (Perlow, 1999; Rheault, 2011). Yet, people often have to make trade-offs between these valuable resources. When making major life decisions, is it better to prioritize time or money? Recent research suggests that people who chronically value having more time at the expense of having less money experience greater life satisfaction, more frequent positive emotions, and less frequent negative emotions, even after controlling for demographics such as age and income (Hershfield, Mogilner, & Barnea, 2016; Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016). Time and money orientations also predict daily decisions. When asked to respond to various hypothetical decisions, respondents who reported prioritizing time over money were more likely to choose a housecleaning service (vs. a cash prize) in a lottery, pay a premium for a direct flight (vs. accepting a long layover), and choose a lower paying career with more free time (vs. a higher paying career with less free time; Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016; Hershfield, Mogilner, & Barnea, 2016). Collectively, these findings suggest that the preference to value time over money is a reliable predictor of time-related decisions and subjective well-being. However, this past research has only examined the influence of time and money orientations using cross sectional surveys and fictional scenarios. Thus, in the current research, we sought to overcome these limitations by examining how time and money trade-offs shape the career choices and happiness of college students two years following graduation. Because career selection is one of the most consequential choices that students face after they graduate (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997), this study provides an ideal test of the question of whether time vs. money orientations shape major life decisions and long-term trajectories of well-being. We also examined whether time vs. money orientations predicted personal motivation. Focusing on money is construed as an extrinsic motivator, with negative implications for well-

6 4 being (Kasser & Ryan, 1993), yet, focusing on time can activate intrinsically motivated goal pursuit (see: Mogilner, Whillans & Norton, 2018 for a recent review). Time vs. money orientations might therefore differentially predict activity motivations, in turn shaping wellbeing. Consistent with this proposition, in several longitudinal studies, students who strived for intrinsic vs. extrinisic goals experienced greater happiness several years post-graduation (Sheldon, 2008; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Whereas most previous research has focused on how personal motivations shape well-being, less research has examined the antecedents of intrinsic vs. extrinsic goal pursuit (cf: Sheldon & Kasser, 2001; Sheldon & Kasser, 2008). We predicted that students who valued time vs. money prior to graduation would report more intrinsically motivated careers, helping to explain why valuing time might predict post graduation happiness. Method Sample sizes, Conditions, and Measures We follow the reporting standards proposed by Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn (2011): we report all exclusions and every measure that was given. Based on the effect sizes documented in previous research (Hershfield, Barnea & Mogilner, 2016; Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016), we targeted at least 200 students and well surpassed this data collection target (N=822). Participants & Procedure Data collection overview. Between September 2014 and June 2016 (T1), we asked senior undergraduate students from a large public university in Canada to complete a validated measure of time and money trade-offs the Resource Orientation Measure (ROM) described in detail below. Students were then invited to complete a follow-up survey (T2) for the chance to win one of three prizes valued at $700 CAD. Participants completed the T2 measure approx. 11 months after completing the initial T1 measure. We successfully recruited 822 students who

7 5 were recent university graduates, and who completed both the T2 and T1 surveys 1. See SOM for demographic characteristics of participants and a correlation table of all measures. Survey overview. Participants completed the T2 survey online. As part of this survey, participants completed several well-being measures and reported on their current primary activity, their motivation for completing this activity, their gender, the highest educational attainment of their parents, materialism and they once again completed the ROM (in this order). Pre-Registration Details & Pre-Registered Hypotheses We pre-registered our hypotheses through the Open Science Framework (OSF), and our data and syntax is publically available (link: Based on the previous research described in detail in the Introduction, we pre-registered three main hypotheses as follows: H1: Students who valued time over money on the ROM at T1 (before graduation) would report greater subjective well-being at T2 (approx. 1 year after graduation). H2: Students who valued time over money at T1 would be more likely to pursue intrinsically motivated activities at T2. H3: Any effect of valuing time over money at T1 on the happiness that students reported at T2 would be at least partially mediated by intrinsically motivated activity pursuit. We also pre-registered conducting analyses to ensure that the above results held controlling for gender, age, parents highest level of education and materialism. Although family SES can be measured in a variety of different ways, we decided to use parents education based on previous research suggesting that students self-reports of parents 1 Respondents either completed this initial T1 measure as part of a larger, annual survey of graduating students run by UBC (26%) or respondents completed this initial T1 measure as part of several similar studies that were ongoing in our lab (74%). We then contacted all students from these data collection opportunities who consented to be recontacted.

8 6 education tends to be a more reliable predictor of family SES as compared to students reports of their parents occupation or household income (Kayser & Summers, 1973). Measures Resource Orientation Measure (T1 & T2). At both T1 and T2, we examined whether students prioritized time or money by implementing the ROM. The ROM asks participants to read a short paragraph describing two individuals and presents participants with a binary choice where they are asked to choose which individual is most like themselves (Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016). The identifiers of the characters and the pronouns used in the vignettes are matched to the participants gender (Tina/Tom and Maggie/Michael); for people who do not report identifying as male or female, the names and pronouns used in the vignettes are displayed as gender neutral (Madison/Taylor). The choices are presented as follows: Tina values her time more than her money. She is willing to sacrifice her money to have more time. For example, Tina would rather work fewer hours and make less money, than work more hours and make more money. Maggie values her money more than her time. She is willing to sacrifice her time to have more money. For example, Maggie would rather work more hours and make more money, than work fewer hours and have more time. Previous research validating this measure has found moderate negative associations between prioritizing time over money, materialism, and material striving (~rs=0.30), suggesting that this measure captures a largely distinct construct (Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016). Past research has also found evidence that this measure is uncorrelated with social desirability, conscientiousness, and current feelings of time and material affluence. Additionally, people s responses to this measure are relatively consistent over a 3-month time frame, whereby relatively

9 7 stable constructs should show no true change (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009). Altogether, people s responses to this measure represent a stable orientation that is related to but distinct from materialism, and that is predictive of daily decisions, life satisfaction, and positive and negative mood, regardless of respondents income, age, gender, marital status or current feelings of time or material affluence (Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016). Subjective well-being (T2). At T2, approx. eighteen months after T1, respondents were asked to report on their overall life satisfaction, answering the question, Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? on a scale from 0 = Not at all to 10 = Extremely. Next, participants completed the Cantril Ladder (Cantril, 1965). For this question, participants were asked to report where they currently stand in life on a ladder spanning from the worst possible to the best possible life imaginable, on a scale from 0 = Bottom Rung to 10 = Top Rung. We selected these items because they are brief measures that are used extensively in large-scale survey research (e.g., Whillans et al., 2017; α = 0.88). Participants then completed affective measures of subjective well-being, reporting on their positive and negative affect in the last 4 weeks on the Schedule for Positive and Negative Affect (SPANE; Diener et al., 2009; PA, α = 0.84; NA, α = 0.86). Consistent with our pre-registered analytic strategy, we observed a correlation above 0.50 between the PA and NA (reversed) subscales and the responses to the SWL items (rs > 0.52); thus, we standardized and combined these measures to create a Subjective Well-Being (SWB) composite. Activity + activity motivation (T2). After reporting on their subjective well-being, students selected their current primary activity from a list that we provided to them (full-time employment, part-time employment, graduate or professional school, service or volunteer activity, internship, travel or gap year, no primary activities, or other).

10 8 Participants were then asked to report on their primary motivation for engaging in this activity. To assess activity motivation, students completed two items adapted from Sheldon, Ryan, Deci and Kasser (2004). Students responded to the question of why are you engaged in these behaviors on two sliding scales ranging from 0 = Because someone told me to to 100 = Because I really identify with the activity and 0 = Because you would feel guilty if you didn t to 100 = Because of the enjoyment this activity gives you. Consistent with our pre-registered analytic plan, we combined participants responses to these two items to form a composite measure indicating intrinsic activity motivation (α = 0.84). Control variables. Consistent with previous research examining time, money, and happiness (Whillans et al., 2017), and consistent with our pre-analytic plan, we conducted all of our analyses using a pre-registered set of controls: gender (1 = female), age, the highest education of the respondents parents, and materialism. We assessed materialism by asking participants to complete the three highest loading items from the Material Values Survey (Richins, 2004; α = 0.75). See SOM for demographics and correlations of all variables. Results ROM At T1, 61.7% of respondents valued time more than money; whereas 38.3% of respondents valued money more than time. We observed nearly the identical split at T2 with 61.8% of respondents valuing time more than money and 38.2% of respondents valuing money more than time. Consistent with previous research using this measure (Whillans, Weidman & Dunn, 2016), there was significant agreement in respondents orientations from T1 to T2, Kappa = (0.03), p < Respondents general orientation to value time over money (or to value money over time) was therefore relatively stable over the course of the study.

11 9 Hypothesis 1: Subjective Well-being As per our pre-registered analytic plan, we examined whether students who prioritized time over money at T1 reported greater SWB at T2. As predicted, students who valued time over money at T1 reported significantly higher SWB at T2 (M = 0.17, SD = 2.44) as compared to students who valued money over time (M = -0.27, SD = 2.55), t(821) = 3.03, p = 0.003, d = 0.26, 95%CI [0.16, 0.73]. Reported in regression, students who valued time more than money reported significantly greater SWB at T2 (β = 0.12, p = 0.001). 2 As per our pre-registered analysis plan, we also examined whether these results held controlling for demographic variables: age, gender (1 = female), and the highest educational attainment of their parent/parents. Consistent with our pre-registered prediction, controlling for these pre-registered covariates, students who valued time more than money at T1 reported significantly greater SWB at T2 (β = 0.11, p = 0.001). Finally, as per our pre-registered analytic plan, we examined whether these results held when we added materialism as a covariate in to this model. When controlling for our preregistered set of covariates and materialism, this result was unchanged: students who valued time more than money at T1 reported significantly greater SWB at T2 (β = 0.11, p = 0.003). Materialism did not predict SWB in this model (β = -0.03, p = 0.346). See SOM for the full regression models with and without covariates. These results held controlling for T1 SWB among a smaller subsample of participants for whom these data were collected (SOM). 2 Note: Due to a data collection error, we obtained data from N=1233 respondents who completed all measures except for age. Because we pre-registered analyses with the age covariate, in text we report all analyses using this smaller subsample who completed all demographic covariates. The analyses on the full sample (N=1233) without the age variable is reported in the SOM. The results are statistically identical regardless of the sample used.

12 10 Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic Activity Motivation Next, we examined whether students choice activity was more intrinsically motivated if they valued time over money at T1. As predicted, students who valued time over money at T1 were significantly more likely to pursue intrinsically motivated careers at T2 (M = 68.60, SD = 23.16) as compared to students who valued money over time (M = 64.59, SD = 24.59), t(821) = 2.84, p = 0.005, d = 0.36, 95%CI [1.28, 6.74]. Reported in regression, students who valued time over money reported significantly higher intrinsic motivation (β = 0.10, p = 0.001). These results held controlling for our pre-registered set of covariates (β = 0.09, p = 0.007) and when adding materialism to this model (β = 0.08, p = 0.020). Materialism did not predict activity motivation (β = -0.04, p = 0.315). See SOM for the full regression models. Once again, these results held controlling for T1 SWB (SOM).

13 11 Table 1. T1 ROM predicting T2 SWB with covariates (gender, parent education, age, materialism) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 =time oriented) Gender (1 =female) Age Parent Ed Materialism F(4, 820) = Table 2. T1 ROM predicting T2 activity motivation with covariates (gender, parent education, materialism) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) Gender (1 = female) Age Parent Ed Materialism F(4, 820) =

14 12 Hypothesis 3: Mediation of SWB By Activity Motivation As per our pre-registered analytic plan, we predicted that the effect of prioritizing time over money on T2 SWB would be at least partially explained by intrinsically motivated activity pursuit. To test this hypothesis, we conducted mediation analyses using the Bootstrapping Macro with 5,000 bootstrapped samples. As per our pre-registered predictions, there was a significant indirect effect, indirect effect = 0.18 (0.06), 95%CI [0.06, 0.31]. Once again, these results held controlling for our pre-registered set of demographic covariates, indirect effect = 0.17 (0.06), 95%CI [0.05, 0.30] and when we controlled for materialism, indirect effect =0.18 (0.06), 95%CI [0.06, 0.31]. These results are consistent with our pre-registered predictions: students who prioritized time vs. money at T1 reported greater SWB at T2 because they were more likely to choose their primary activity for intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) reasons. These results held controlling for T1 SWB (see SOM). Exploratory Analyses ROM predicting T2 activities. On an exploratory basis, we examined whether participants responses to the ROM at T1 predicted the activities they chose to complete at T2. When predicting career choices by the ROM, the overall omnibust chi-square was significant, X 2 = 28.46, p < Respondents who valued time over money at T1 were significantly more likely to report attending graduate or professional school (13.8%) after graduation compared to respondents who valued money over time (8.7%), p < Furthermore, respondents who valued time over money at T1 were significantly less likely to be employed full-time at T2 (18.7% vs. 28.4%), p < 0.05 as compared to respondents who valued time over money. Thus, participants reponses to the ROM at T1 significantly predicted what primary activities people chose to do after graduation in addition to why people chose to engage in these activities.

15 13 General Discussion In a pre-registered longitudinal study of recent college graduates (N = 822), respondents chronic orientations to value time over money shaped their career choices and subjective wellbeing. Students who valued time over money at T1 were happier 1.5 years following graduation because they were more likely to pursue intrinsically motivated activities. Students time and money orientations were more predictive of career choices and well-being at T2 than their socieconomic background or materialistic values. These results provide a window into the critical importance of time and money orientations for shaping long-term subjective well-being. It is worth noting that our results are somewhat inconsistent with research on selfconcordance goals, which would suggest that people who value time (money) and pursue intrinsically (extrinsically) motivated goals should experience equivalent gains in happiness (Sheldon, 2008; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). It is possible that respondents who value time over money might be better at achieving their goals, leading to greater goal-related persistance (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004) and helping to explain why people who value time over money are happier 1-2 years following graduation. Future research should explore this possibility. We focused on college students because the choices that graduating college students make can fundamentally shape the trajectory of their lives. Future research could also productively examine the influence of time and money orientations for helping individuals navigate other major transitions in life, such as marriage or kids. To the extent that people face situations when they should focus more on time or more on money, flexibly adapting prioritizies to align with current demands could be particularly adaptive (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). In sum, we provide the first empirical evidence that the chronic orientation to value time over money can shape career choices and long-term trajectories of subjective well-being.

16 14 References Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), Hershfield, H. E., Mogilner, C., & Barnea, U. (2016). People who choose time over money are happier. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: A sociological theory of career decision making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1), Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical psychology review, 30(7), Mogilner, C., Whillans, A., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Time, Money, and Subjective Well- Being. Handbook of Well-Being. Noba Scholar Handbook series: Subjective well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF publishers. DOI: nobascholar. com. Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), Rheault, M. (2011). Lack of money tops list of Americans financial worries. Gallup Poll Social Series: Consumption Habits. Retrieved from

17 15 Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Assessing the sustainability of goal-based changes in adjustment over a four-year period. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 491. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2008). Psychological threat and extrinsic goal striving. Motivation and Emotion, 32(1), Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246. Whillans, A. V., Dunn, E. W., Smeets, P., Bekkers, R., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Buying time promotes happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Whillans, A. V., Weidman, A. C., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). Valuing time over money is associated with greater happiness. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7(3),

18 16 Table S1. Demographic characteristics of respondents who completed T1 and T2. Variables Percent Time Oriented T1 61.7% Percent Time Oriented T2 61.7% Percent Time Oriented T3 61.3% Percent Female T2 70.6% Md, age T (SD=4.15) Primary Activity T2 Additional education (31.9%) Full-time employment (22.3%) Part-time employment (21.2%) Other (13.2%) No activities (4.8%) Service Trip (3.6%) Travel or gap year (2.5%) Unpaid internship (1.5%) Motivation for Primary Activity T (SD=23.85) Table S2. Correlation table of all variables examined at T1 and T Time Oriented (1=Yes) 2. T2 SWB 0.09** 3. T2 SWL 0.10*** 0.82*** 4. T2 PA 0.06* 0.86*** 0.59*** 5. T2 NA -0.06* -0.81*** -0.47** -0.56*** 6. Activity Motivation 0.08** 0.43*** 0.42*** 0.35*** -0.30*** 7. Age Gender (1=Female) *** ** 9. Parents BA (1=Yes) ** 0.35*** 10. Materialism -0.06* *** p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

19 17 Hypothesis 1: Subjective Well-being Table S3a. T1 ROM predicting T2 SWB without covariates β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) F(1, 1232) = Table S3b. T1 ROM predicting T2 SWB with demographic covariates (gender, parent education, age) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) Gender (1 = female) Age Parent Ed F(3, 821) = Note. Due to a survey error, we collected age data from only N = 822 respondents. The results hold with or without age. Table S3c. T1 ROM predicting T2 SWB with demographic covariates (gender, parent education) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) Gender (1 = female) Parent Ed F(2, 1231) =

20 18 Hypothesis 2: Intrinsic Activity Motivation Table S4a. T1 ROM predicting T2 activity motivation without covariates β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) F(1, 1231) = = Table S4b. T1 ROM predicting T2 activity motivation with demographic covariates (gender, parent education, age) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) Gender (1 = female) Age Parent Ed F(3, 821) = Table S4c. T1 ROM predicting T2 activity motivation with demographic covariates (gender, parent education) β B SE P value for predictor F value for model P value for model R ROM (1 = time oriented) Gender (1 = female) Parent Ed F(2, 1231) =

21 19 Hypothesis 3: Mediation of SWB By Activity Motivation Indirect Effect: 0.18 (0.06), 95% [0.06, 0.31] B=4.01** (1.39) T2 Intrinsic Motivation B=0.05*** (0.002) T1 Time Oriented (1=Yes) T2 Subjective Well-being Notes. All B s represent unstandardized regression coefficients obtained through bootstrapping using 5,000 resamples. The range in brackets represents the 95% CI of the indirect effect. Figure S1. Mediation of Intrinsic Motivation on SWB without covariates.

22 20 Exploratory Analysis T2 SWB, controlling for T1 SWB. A subset of respondents who we had recruited from various laboratory studies also completed SWB measures at T1 (N = 852). This subset did not significantly differ from the full sample on age, gender, or the highest educational attainment of their parent/parents (ps > 0.51). On an exploratory basis, we also assessed whether respondents who valued time over money at T1 reported greater T2 SWB and T2 activity motivation after controlling for T1 SWB. Consistent with our pre-registered analyses reported above, after controlling for T1 SWB, students who valued time over money reported significantly greater SWB at T2 (M = 0.13, SD = 2.49) as compared to students who valued money over time (M = , SD = 2.66), F(1, 850) = 4.89, p = 0.027, η 2 = Reporting these results in regression, students who valued time more than money at T1 reported greater SWB at T2 after controlling for T1 SWB (β = 0.06, p = 0.027). These results held controlling for age, gender, and parent education (β = 0.06, p = 0.050) and materialism (β = 0.06, p = 0.034). These results suggest that T1 orientation shapes SWB over time, such that students who reported valuing time vs. money at T1 reported greater SWB at T2, controlling for T1 SWB. Intrinsic activity motivation controlling for T1 SWB. On an exploratory basis, we also assessed whether respondents who valued time over money at T1 reported greater T2 activity motivation upon controlling for T1 SWB. Controlling for T1 SWB, respondents who valued time over money at T1 reported higher intrinsic motivation at T2 (M = 69.34, SD = 21.42) as compared to respondents who valued money over time (M = 65.20, SD = 24.70), F(1, 849) = 4.01, p = 0.045, η 2 = Reporting these results in regression, students who valued time more than money at T1 reported greater intrinsic motivation at T2 after controlling for T1 SWB (β = 0.07, p = 0.045). These results were significant controlling for age, gender, and parent education

23 21 (β = 0.08, p = 0.021) and were marginally significant controlling for materialism (β = 0.07, p = 0.054). Thus, T1 orientation shapes T2 intrinsic motivation, controlling for T1 SWB. Mediation by activity motivation controlling for T1 SWB. We assessed whether the mediational results that we observed held controlling for T1 SWB. To test this hypothesis, we conducted mediation analyses using the Boostrapping Macro with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2009). Consistent with our pre-registered results, there was a significant indirect effect, indirect effect = 0.10 (0.05), 95%CI [0.01, 0.21]. These results held controlling for our pre-determined set of demographic covariates, indirect effect = 0.11 (0.05), 95%CI [0.02, 0.23] and controlling for materialism, indirect effect = 0.10 (0.05), 95%CI [0.01, 0.21]. Thus, T1 orientation predicts T2 SWB in part by shaping intrinsic motivation, controlling for T1 SWB.