Inconclusive evidence for necessity effects of basic psychological need satisfaction on employee well-being: Re-examining Ding et al. (2026)
Abstract
Using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), Ding et al. concluded that employees must experience sufficient satisfaction of their basic psychological needs at work in order to attain high levels of well-being. However, necessity effects obtained with NCA can emerge even in the absence of genuine necessity relations because correlations between variables may create similar patterns. In the present study, we reanalyzed the findings reported by Ding et al. by comparing the observed necessity effects with benchmark values expected from correlation alone. Most of the reported effects (96.4%) were located within or below the estimated ranges of spuriousness, indicating that they were no larger than would be expected under conditions where no true necessity mechanism exists. Consequently, the results reported by Ding et al. provide little support for the conclusion that psychological need satisfaction constitutes a necessary condition for employee well-being. We argue that applications of NCA should routinely incorporate assessments of ranges of spuriousness and that necessity claims should be restricted to effects that clearly exceed these ranges.
Related
- Questionable necessity effects on patient safety competency among nursing students: Re-examining Yang et al. (2027)
- Inconclusive evidence for a mediated association between childhood adversity and resilience: A reexamination of Suriano and Valentino (2026)
- Inconclusive mediated effect of adverse childhood experiences on suicide risk among depressed adolescents: A reanalysis of Ye et al. (2026)
- Inconclusive mediated effect of empathy on perceived stress among nurses: A comment on Wang et al. (2026)
- Inconclusive prospective effects between technology acceptance, classroom distraction, and academic engagement among Chinese high school students: A reassessment of Li and Chen (2026)
BibTeX
@misc{sorjonen2026inconclusive,
title = {{Inconclusive evidence for necessity effects of basic psychological need satisfaction on employee well-being: Re-examining Ding et al. (2026)}},
author = {Kimmo Sorjonen and Bo Melin and Filippa Folke and Marika Melin},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/bw7mf_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/bw7mf_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Inconclusive evidence for necessity effects of basic psychological need satisfaction on employee well-being: Re-examining Ding et al. (2026)
AU - Kimmo Sorjonen
AU - Bo Melin
AU - Filippa Folke
AU - Marika Melin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/bw7mf_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/bw7mf_v1/
AB - Using Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), Ding et al. concluded that employees must experience sufficient satisfaction of their basic psychological needs at work in order to attain high levels of well-being. However, necessity effects obtained with NCA can emerge even in the absence of genuine necessity relations because correlations between variables may create similar patterns. In the present study, we reanalyzed the findings reported by Ding et al. by comparing the observed necessity effects with benchmark values expected from correlation alone. Most of the reported effects (96.4%) were located within or below the estimated ranges of spuriousness, indicating that they were no larger than would be expected under conditions where no true necessity mechanism exists. Consequently, the results reported by Ding et al. provide little support for the conclusion that psychological need satisfaction constitutes a necessary condition for employee well-being. We argue that applications of NCA should routinely incorporate assessments of ranges of spuriousness and that necessity claims should be restricted to effects that clearly exceed these ranges.
ER -