Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.

1 1

Relationship Between Satisfying Psychological Needs and Resilience in B.Ed Students

Khin Myo Thein 1, Aye Chan Myat Phyoe2

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between satisfying
psychological needs and resilience in B.Ed students. Design of this study is cross sectional
in nature. Quantitative perspective was used in this study. Two Universities of Education,
Yangon University of Education (YUOE) and Sagaing University of Education (SUOE)
were purposefully selected for this study. A total of 1436 B.Ed students attending at the
first year to final year classes participated in this study. Child and Youth Resilience
Measure (CYRM) developed by Liebenberg, Ungar, and Van de Vijver (2012) and Basic
Psychological Needs Scale developed by Deci and Ryan (2000) were used as research
instruments in this study. The CYRM comprises three sub-scales: Individual
Capacity/Resources, Relationship with Primary Caregiver and Contextual Factor. The
BPNS consists of three sub-scales, namely, Need for Autonomy, Need for Competence and
Need for Relatedness. Alpha reliability for CYRM and BPNS revealed at 0.83 and 0.78
respectively. The result of this study revealed that significant differences existed in B.Ed
students‟ resilience with respect to gender, university and level of education. But there was
no difference in resilience with respect to age group. Again, the result showed that
significant differences existed in satisfying psychological needs by university and age
group. However, significant differences in satisfying psychological needs were not found to
be by gender and level of education. Moreover, all three subscales of psychological needs
were positively correlated with resilience. Therefore, it could be said that the higher the
satisfaction of a student‟s psychological needs, the higher his or her resilience. Besides,
multiple regression analysis results showed that all basic psychological needs have positive
and significant effect on resilience. In sum, findings of study provide good evidences for
effect of satisfying psychological needs on resilience.

Key Words: Basic Psychological Needs, Resilience.

Introduction
In past and at the beginning of its evolution as a science, psychology has relied
more on disease than health, aggression than love, fear than courage and psychologists had
not emphasized so much on helping people for being more glad, more perfect, more hope,
more love and more optimism (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Today, positive
psychology has been emerged against this trend which studies strength of human and has
shifted its focus from treating and preventing mental disorders to helping individuals attain
well-being and live a fulfilling and satisfied life.
To identify methods that follow human well-being and happiness is the final target
in positive psychology. Resilience has attracted many researchers in recent years because
of its impact on mental health. Resilience means successful conformity in spite of harmful
conditions and threats in environment that people live in it. In reality, resilience is positive
adaptation in reaction to worse conditions (Deci and Ryan, 2004).

1
Lecturer, Department of Educational Psychology, Yangon University of Education
2
Senior Assistant Teacher, Basic Education High School, Anangone, Ayeyarwady Region
2 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

Basic psychological need theory states that satisfying basic psychological needs
leads to well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These needs include: need for autonomy, need
for competence and need for relatedness are important for individual. Need for autonomy
means freedom in activities instead of control sense or obligation. This need meets when a
person feels that based on his integrated perception of self, he acts according to his will
(Deci and Ryan, 2000). Need for competence is capacity and efficacy in confronting
environment, such that an individual feels that he can control environmental experiences
and copes different challenges (White, 1959). Need for relatedness means need for having
ties with others, such that a person feels that he is loved by those who are important for
them (Deci et al., 2001). From the perspective of self-determination theory (Deci and
Ryan, 2000), all individuals require satisfaction of basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness. Based on this, this research investigates
satisfaction of basic psychological needs with resilience.
It is the dream of every nation, community, parents, and students to have good
academic attainment to adequately equip the individual to meet the challenges of the
modern global world. Also in Myanmar, “to create a modern and developed country
through education” is our nation‟s motto. Charles Richard Van Hise, president of the
University of Wisconsin and Charles Mc Carthy (1912) also stated that “What the brain is
to a man‟s hands, feel and eyes, the university is to the people of the state” (cited in Dr.
Khin Zaw Oo, 2015). Among universities, the two universities of education, Yangon
University of Education and Sagaing University of Education are the main pillars of
education in Myanmar. Thus, our nation‟s progress depends much on the today‟s
generation especially B.Ed students from these two universities since, through education,
they can influence and transform society and the world at large. Therefore, it is very
important for them to attain well-being and live a fulfilling and satisfied life. For these
reasons, this research tries to investigate the relationship between satisfying psychological
needs and resilience in B.Ed students.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the research is to investigate the relationship between
satisfying psychological needs and resilience in B.Ed students. The specific objectives of
this study are:
• To find out the difference between satisfying psychological needs and resilience in
B.Ed students by gender
• To compare the difference between satisfying psychological needs and resilience
in B.Ed students by university
• To assess the difference between satisfying psychological needs and resilience in
B.Ed students by age group
• To examine the difference between satisfying psychological needs and resilience in
B.Ed students by level of education
Review of Related Literature

Resilience as a Multidimensional Process

Although it is now widely accepted that resilience is the capacity of individuals to
overcome adversity and do well in spite of exposure to significant adversity, it is also
accepted that resilience is associated with individual capacities (such as the capacity to
form attachments, self-regulate, cognitive skills, and personality or temperament),
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 3

relationships (with family, friends, peers, and the ability to interact in socially appropriate
ways with members of the broader community), and the availability of community
resources and opportunities (including educational, health, recreational, and social
services) (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 1999; Ungar, 2011). A three-factor structure best reflects
the theoretical models of resilience as explained by Garmezy (1985), Luthar, Cicchetti,
and Becker (2000), Masten (2001), Rutter (2000), and Werner (2000).

Garmezy (1985) held an ecological view of resilience based on the view that the
environment around the child contributed significantly to the outcomes of children
experiencing stress and he contended that protective factors at the individual and familial
levels, and external to the family, all influence resilience. Some of these influences
include:
1. Individual factors – dispositional attributes of the child such as temperament (activity
level), how one meets new situations (positive responsiveness to others), and cognitive
skills.
2. Familial factors – family cohesion and warmth (despite poverty or marital discord), the
presence of a caring adult in the absence of responsive parents (such as a grandparent), or
a concern by parents for the well-being of their children.
3. Support factors – external to family, and included the availability and use of external
support systems by parents and children, a strong maternal substitute, a supportive and
concerned teacher, or an institutional structure that fosters ties to the larger community
(church, social worker).
Studies of these components and how they function in the lives of those confronted
by risk have affirmed that resilience is not a static state, an outcome or an inherent trait
within the individual. Rather, the interactions between an individual‟s environment and an
individual‟s assets generate processes that help people to overcome adversity. As Ungar
(2008) explains, in the context of exposure to significant adversity, whether psychological,
environmental, or both, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way
to health sustaining resources, including opportunities to experience feelings of wellbeing,
and a condition of the individual‟s family, community, and culture to provide these health
resources and experience in culturally meaningful ways.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

According to Deci and Ryan (2000), self-determination theory is an organismic
metatheory that attempts to explain how and why people self-regulate behavior. The major
assumption of this theory is that all human beings are organisms with a natural orientation
toward vitality and growth. Deci and Ryan (2000) suggest that this growth tendency will
be actualized as long as three basic psychological nutriments (autonomy, competence and
relatedness) are available. In brief , autonomy refers to the feeling that one has choice and
is not subject to coercion or unwanted pressure ,the feeling of volition, willingness,
concurrence, and choice with respect to a behavior or experience one is engaged in (de
Charms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000); competence refers to the feeling that one is
efficacious and able to master challenges (Deci & Ryan 2000; White, 1959) and the
feeling effective and confident with respect to some behavior or goal (White, 1959);
finally, relatedness satisfaction concerns the experience of love and care by significant
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Essentially, optimal human
4 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

functioning results when these nutriments are supported and non-optimal functioning
results when these nutriments are thwarted. Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan
(2000) compared this to the needs that most plants have for sun, soil and water. When a
plant‟s needs for sun, soil and water are met, a plant will flourish and grow. However,
when such nutriments are in limited supply or are withheld, a plant may still survive, but
may not reach its potential.

Method and Procedure

Participants

A total of 1436 students attending at the first year to final year classes participated
in this study. Two Universities of Education, Yangon University of Education (YUOE)
and Sagaing University of Education (SUOE) were purposefully selected for this study.
The sample consists of 724 students (320 males and 404 females) from YUOE and 712
students (349 males and 363 females) from SUOE. Among the sample, 47% (669) of
participants were males and 53% (767) were females.
Instrumentation
In order to investigate resilience of participated students, CYRM developed by
Liebenberg, Ungar, and Van de Vijver (2012) was used. Child and Youth Resilience
Measure comprised three sub-scales: individual capacities/resources, relationships with
primary caregivers and contextual Factors (see Appendix C). A total of 28 items were
involved in the Child and Youth Resilience Measure.
Again, students‟ satisfaction of psychological needs was measured by using Basic
Psychological Needs Scale developed by Deci and Ryan (2000) was used in this study.
This questionnaire consists of 21 items related to three subscales, namely, need for
autonomy, need for competence and need for relatedness (see Appendix D). Each subscale
of both instruments were coded by using a five-point likert scale, with 1 = “strongly
disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”.

Procedure
First, relevant information was gathered for literature review from the libraries and
internet sources. Next, the instruments required for the study were prepared under the
guidance and suggestion of the supervisor. Then, expert review was conducted to ensure
the content validity and face validity of instrument. Pilot study was also conducted to
determine the internal consistency, the clarity of the items and the time allocated to
complete the Basic Psychological Needs Scale and Child and Youth Resilience Measure.
After validating the instrument, data collection was carried out at the two Universities of
Education to collect the data required for this study. When the data collection procedure
was finished, required data were analyzed step-by-step.

Data Analysis and Findings

By applying Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) and Basic
Psychological Needs Scales (BPNS), differences in resilience and psychological needs of
B.Ed students were examined at two Universities of Education. In addition, differences by
gender, university, training, age group and level of education were investigated.
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 5

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for B.Ed Students’ Resilience and Psychological

Needs

Variables N Mean % Minimum Maximum SD Cronbach’s

Alpha
Resilience 1436 82.43 46 101 6.56 0.83
Psychological
Needs 1436 69.68 40 96 7.98 0.78

By using the data obtained from the selected participants, the students‟ resilience
and satisfying psychological needs can be estimated. According to the descriptive
statistics, the mean percentage of students‟ resilience and satisfying psychological needs
were 82.43 and 69.68 respectively. Cronbach‟s alpha for resilience and psychological
needs revealed at 0.83 and 0.78 respectively.

Table 2 Comparison of B.Ed Students’ Resilience and Psychological Needs by

Gender

Variables Gender N Mean% SD t p

Male 669 81.74 6.805
Resilience -3.720*** .000
Female 767 83.03 6.281
Psychological Male 669 69.42 8.066
-1.170 .242
Needs Female 767 69.91 7.898

***p<0.001

To find out the differences of students‟ resilience and satisfying psychological

needs between male and female students from the selected universities, descriptive
statistics were applied. According to Table 2, it can be seen that the mean scores of female
students were higher than that of male students in resilience but a slightly variation of the
mean scores exists between male students and female students.
To obtain more information for gender differences, the independent sample t-test
was applied to find out the significant differences in resilience and psychological needs by
gender. From the results of independent sample t-test, there were statistically significant
differences in resilience by gender. So, it could be interpreted that the female students had
higher ability to navigate to the culturally relevant resources they need to do well when
confronting adversity than male students.
Table 3 Comparison of B.Ed Students’ Resilience and Psychological Needs by
University
Variables University N Mean% SD t p
YUOE 724 81.92 6.474
Resilience -2.973** .003
SUOE 712 82.95 6.610
Psychological YUOE 724 68.91 7.738
-3.744*** .000
Needs SUOE 712 70.47 8.144
**p<0.01, ***p<0.001
6 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

To find out the differences in resilience and psychological needs with regard to
university, descriptive statistics and t test were calculated. The results were mentioned in
table 3. According to table 3, the mean scores of Sagaing University of Education were
higher than in both resilience and psychological needs.
From the results of independent sample t-test, there were significant differences in
resilience and psychological needs by university. It could be concluded that students from
Sagaing University of Education had more individual resources to adapt successfully to
disturbances that threaten system function and higher satisfaction of psychological needs
than those from Yangon University of Education.
Table 4 Comparison of B.Ed Students’ Resilience and Psychological Needs by Age
Group
Variables University N Mean% SD t p
Below 20 720 82.64 6.485
Resilience 1.246 .213
20 & above 716 82.21 6.630
Psychological Below 20 720 69.24 8.058
-2.138* .033
Needs 20 & above 716 70.13 7.876
*p<0.05

To figure out the differences in resilience and psychological needs with regard to
age, descriptive statistics and t-test were applied. The means values of two age-groups:
below 20 age group, and 20 and above age group were reported in table 4.

According to the results of independent sample t-test, there was significant

difference in psychological needs by age group. It may be due to the fact that 20 and
above age group students satisfied basic psychological needs more than those of below
those of below 20 age group.

Table 5 Comparison of Students’ Psychological Needs and Resilience by Level of

Education

To test whether there was significant difference in psychological needs and

resilience of B.Ed students by level of education, one way ANOVA were conducted.

Education No. of
Variables Mean % SD F p
Level Students
1.1 209 84.29 6.594
2.1 209 81.57 6.251
3.1 202 82.31 6.267
Resilience 4.1 201 81.76 6.300 5.038*** .000
4.2 203 82.79 6.840
5.1 204 81.36 6.990
5.2 208 82.89 6.250
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 7

Education No. of
Variables Mean % SD F p
Level Students
1.1 209 69.72 8.538
2.1 209 69.03 7.727
Psychological 3.1 202 68.96 7.702
Needs 4.1 201 69.64 8.354 1.038 .399
4.2 203 69.67 7.661
5.1 204 70.43 8.022
5.2 208 70.33 7.785
***p<0.001

Note: 1.1= First Year (First Semester), 2.1= Second Year (Second Semester), 3.1= Third
Year (First Semester), 4.1= Fourth Year (First Semester), 4.2= Fourth Year (Second
Semester), 5.1= Fifth Year (First Semester), 5.2= Fifth Year (Second Semester)

Table 6 Results of Post-Hoc Analysis for Resilience and Psychological Needs by Level
of Education

To obtain more detailed information of which level of education had significant

differences, Post Hoc Test was conducted by Turkey‟s multiple comparison procedure
(see Table 6).

Subscales of (I) Education (J) Education Mean Difference p

Resilience Level Level (I-J)
Individual Capacity 2.1 4.2 -2.117* .034
Relationship with 4.1 3.609* .018
1.1
Primary Caregivers
5.1 4.261* .002
2.1 3.507* .000
3.1 3.362* .000
Contextual Factor 1.1
4.1 3.962* .000
4.2 2.510* .019
5.1 4.668* .000
5.2 2.383* .031
Need for Autonomy 3.1 5.2 -3.071* .023
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Note: 1.1= First Year (First Semester), 2.1= Second Year (Second Semester), 3.1= Third
Year (First Semester), 4.1= Fourth Year (First Semester), 4.2= Fourth Year (Second
Semester), 5.1= Fifth Year (First Semester), 5.2= Fifth Year (Second Semester)
8 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

According to the result of table 6, in individual capacity, it could be easily seen

that there were significant difference between second year (first semester) and fourth year
(second semester). Therefore, it could be reasonably concluded that the senior students
such as students from fourth year had higher individual capacity to overcome adversity
and more capacity to navigate their ways to resources that sustain well-being than their
juniors such as students from second year. Similarly, in relationship with primary
caregivers, there were significant differences between first year (first semester) and fourth
year (first semester), and between first year (first semester) and fifth year (first semester).
It could be interpreted that first year students were physically and psychologically
provided more resources from their primary caregiver than their seniors. In contextual
factor, there were significant differences between first year (first semester) and all other
levels of education. It may be assumed that first year students involved numerous support
services to get and seek community resources more than their seniors. Besides, it could be
easily seen that there was significant difference between third year (first semester) and
fifth year (second semester) in need for autonomy. It may be assumed that the final year
students had higher need to pursue activities in which individuals are motivated internally
and experience joy as a result of having personal choice than the third year students who
were from education colleges.

Table 7 The Relationship Between Subscales of Psychological Needs and Resilience

Variables NA NC NR ICR RPC CF

NA - .447** .397** .390** .296** .286**

NC - .356** .341** .234** .257**

NR - .486** .291** .359**

ICR - .356** .463**

RPC - .443**

CF -
**. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: 1.1= First Year (First Semester), 2.1= Second Year (Second Semester), 3.1= Third
Year (First Semester), 4.1= Fourth Year (First Semester), 4.2= Fourth Year (Second
Semester), 5.1= Fifth Year (First Semester), 5.2= Fifth Year (Second Semester)

Table 7 showed that the inter-correlation between resilience and psychological

needs. It could be seen that all three subscales of psychological needs were positively
correlated with all resilience sub-scales. So, it could be said that the higher the satisfaction
of a student‟s psychological needs: need for autonomy, need for competence and need for
relatedness, the higher his or her resilience. Especially, individual capacity was strongly
correlated with need for relatedness. Moreover, all the subscales in psychological needs
and resilience were correlated with each other. Therefore, to investigate the predictive
power of each subscale of psychological needs to resilience of B.Ed students, multiple
regression analysis was conducted (see Table 8).
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 9

Table 8 Multiple Regression Analysis Between Each Subscale of Psychological Needs

and Resilience
Variables B  t p R R2 Adj R2 F
Constant 51.025 40.018*** .000 .551 .304 .303 208.56***
NA .145 .214 8.324*** .000
NC .083 .134 5.290*** .000
NR .215 .350 14.207*** .000
***. Correlation is significant at 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Note: ***p<0.001, Constant = Resilience(R), NA=Need for Autonomy, NC= Need for
Competence, NR= Need for Relatedness

The result showed that resilience was positively related with psychological needs.
All three basic psychological needs: need for autonomy, need for competence and need for
relatedness were significant predictors of resilience in positive direction (β = .214, β =.134
and β = .350, respectively, p<0.001). So, it could be said that the higher the satisfaction of
a student‟s basic psychological needs, the higher his or her resilience. The adjusted R2
value is .303. This indicated that approximately 30% of the variance in resilience could be
explained from psychological needs. The model equation to predict the resilience from
students‟ satisfaction of psychological needs was as follows;
R = 51.025 + .145NA + .083NC + .215NR
Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendations
Conclusion
Resilience makes the teacher to respond positively to challenging circumstances
which they may meet over the course of a career. It is unrealistic to expect pupils to be
resilient if their teachers, who constitute a primary source of their role models, do not
demonstrate resilient qualities (Henderson & Milstein, 2003). A shift in focus from teacher
stress and burnout to resilience provides a promising perspective to understand the ways
that teachers manage and sustain their motivation and commitment in times of change.
Moreover, resilience, defined as the capacity to continue to „„bounce back‟‟, to recover
strengths or spirit quickly and efficiently in the face of adversity, is closely allied to a
strong sense of vocation, self-efficacy and motivation to teach which are fundamental to a
concern for promoting achievement in all aspects of students‟ lives. Since, resilience is of
importance in B.Ed students for the above reasons.

Self-determination Theory (SDT) is a theory of human motivation that examines a

wide range of phenomena across gender, culture, age, and socioeconomic status. SDT
proposes that all human beings have three basic psychological needs – the needs for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness are essential nutrients for effective functioning
and wellness. In brief, competence refers to the experience of a sense of effectiveness in
interacting with one‟s environment (White, 1959); relatedness satisfaction concerns the
experience of love and care by significant others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci &
10 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

Ryan, 1985); finally, autonomy refers to the experience of volition and the self-
endorsement of one‟s activity (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Just as plants need water and sunshine
to grow and to flower, the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs is deemed essential
to psychological thriving (Ryan, 1995).When a plant‟s needs for sun, soil and water are
met, a plant will flourish and grow. However, when such nutriments are in limited supply
or are withheld, a plant may still survive, but may not reach its potential.

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate relationship between meeting
basic psychological needs and resilience in B.Ed students. Besides, this study sought to
explore differences in resilience and satisfaction of psychological needs with respect to
gender, university, age group and level of education. A total of 1436 students attending at
the first year to final year classes from Yangon University of Education (YUOE) and
Sagaing University of Education (SUOE) participated in this study. The sample consisted
of 724 students (320 males and 404 females) from YUOE and 712 students (349 males
and 363 females) from SUOE. Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) and Basic
Psychological Needs Scales (BPNS) were used as research instruments.
Regarding the gender, the mean scores of selected female students were higher in
relationship with primary caregivers and contextual factors of resilience than those of
selected male students. The results of t test confirmed that significant differences were
found to be on resilience. However, gender related difference was not found to be on
psychological needs. Although a slight variation of mean scores exists, no significant
difference was found to be on overall scale of psychological needs while considering the
gender variable.
Concerning the university, the mean scores of selected B.Ed students from Sagaing
University of Education were higher in individual resources and relationship with primary
caregivers than selected B.Ed students from Yangon University of Education. From the
result of t test, as the overall scale, there was significant difference in resilience by
university. Moreover, the mean scores of three sub-scales of psychological needs from
SUOE were higher than those from YUOE. The results of t test also showed that
significant difference was found to be on psychological needs by university.
In the analysis of resilience by age group, the mean scores of two sub-scales as
well as overall scale of resilience were found to be nearly identical. According to t test
result, age related difference was not found on resilience. Concerning the age group, the
mean scores of psychological needs of 20 and above age group were higher than that of
below 20 age group. From the results of t test, significant difference was found to be on
resilience by age group.
Again, resilience and psychological needs of B.Ed students were explored across
level of education. Regarding the level of education, significant differences were found to
be on overall scores as well as sub-scale scores of resilience. These differences were,
again, confirmed by Post-Hoc analysis. Results revealed that, in individual capacity, there
were significant difference between second year (first semester) and fourth year (second
semester). Similarly, in relationship with primary caregivers, there were significant
differences between first year (first semester) and fourth year (first semester), and between
first year (first semester) and fifth year (first semester). In contextual factor, there were
significant differences between first year (first semester) and all other levels of education.
In addition, significant difference was not found to be on overall scores of psychological
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 11

needs by level of education. According to Post-Hoc results, there were significant

difference between third year (first semester) and fifth year (second semester).

Finally, regression result showed that resilience was positively related with
psychological needs. By reviewing results, supporting autonomy, competence and
relatedness positively can predict resilience which was consistent with self-determination
theory of Deci and Ryan (2004) that social factors, especially supporting environments
and contexts which help basic psychological needs, has positive effect on resilience and
health. Also results are consistent with Deci and Ryan (2004), Sigelman (1999), Deci and
Ryan (2000) studies. These researchers believed that when relation of parents with
children and context behavior with students, based on supporting independent behaviors
and contribution in students, meeting basic needs facilitates and leads to mental
adaptability, resilience and well-being. Fundamental psychological needs and their
dissatisfaction can have considerable role in resilience, because meeting these needs
provide necessary conditions for growth and development, consistency and well-being
(Deci et al., 2001). According to self-determination theory, variations in meeting needs
directly predict well-being variations. Sheldon, Ryan and Reis (1996) have tested routine
changes in autonomy and competence. They found that in individual differences level
satisfaction of two psychological needs: autonomy and competence are correlated with
psychological well-being.
Satisfaction of each of the three basic psychological needs is essential for
continuing growth, resilience and flourishing. Individuals will orient toward growth and
well-being to the extent that their societies and social environments respond to them in
ways that support these needs, enabling them to flexibly adapt to drastic socio-economic
changes. Importantly, the relevance of basic psychological needs for well-being is not a
culturally specific one. Research has shown that satisfaction of the basic psychological
needs is important universally, for example in both Western individualistic cultures as well
as in Eastern, collectivist ones (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Jang, Reeve, Ryan,
& Kim, 2009; Ryan, La Guardia, Solky-Butzel, Chirkov, & Kim, 2005). Using samples
from a diverse set of cultures, studies have specifically shown that basic need satisfaction
allows people to experience a sense of well-being, life meaning, and energy or aliveness
(Ryan & Frederick, 1997). On the other hand, being deprived of need satisfaction results
in poorer stress regulation and consequent higher anxiety, depression, burnout, and lower
energy or vitality (Gagné, Ryan, & Bergmann, 2003; Reis et al., 2000).

Discussion and Recommendation

In justifying the results, satisfying basic psychological needs had positive impact
on resilience. Therefore, for B.Ed students, societies including peers, teachers and parents
should provide them continuing opportunities for basic psychological need satisfaction
which has positive effect such as resilience. In other words, students will have more
energy, motivation and desire to come together to cope with and recover from setbacks
and challenges when they feel cared for and supported by their community. In addition,
parents and teachers should provide grounds for meeting needs and resilience by emphasis
on cooperative behaviors like providing useful feedback, listening, reducing mental and
behavioral pressures, establishing warm and closed relations, contribution in educational
activities. Human beings require psychological nutriments from their social environments
and life experiences in much the same way that plants require oxygen and water. Without
12 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

these psychological nutriments people are less likely to thrive – much as a plant struggles
to grow under depleted environmental conditions.

As three basic needs: needs for autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975),
competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and relatedness (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995) are most essential to human functioning, the suggestions for satisfaction of
each needs are presented. For satisfaction of the need for autonomy, social environments
should encourage behaviors that are congruent with the individuals‟ desires and values,
rather than pressuring them to act in ways that are consistent with other people‟s values. In
addition, societies should create a sense of autonomy by helping individuals to understand
the rationale for particular decisions or changes at the community level, which in turn
helps members to volitionally engage in behaviors they adopt for accommodating to
changes. For competence, social contexts should provide positive and useful feedback and
presenting individuals with optimal challenges. Finally, for relatedness, social
environments should by support close relationships and helping them to feel they are „on
the same team‟ as their community members.

Limitations of the Study

The design of this study was cross-sectional in nature but selected institutions for
this study were only two Universities of Education. Given the cross-sectional design of
this study, causal relationships among the variables could not be established. Longitudinal
studies should be employed to test the hypotheses. Due to the shortage of time and
relevant resources, such kind of design was impossible for this study. Moreover, the
participating institutions were drawn only one University from upper Myanmar and
another one from lower Myanmar. Although there are two Universities of Education in
Myanmar, more than twenty Colleges of Education are still left to be included in this
study. In this regard, investigation the relationship between satisfying psychological needs
and resilience in B.Ed students can be examined only at the above mentioned two
Universities of Education. In addition, since the demographic factors about parents of
participants were incomplete in the answers of survey questionnaire, they were not used in
this study. Therefore, it is suggested that relation of family relatedness patterns with
meeting psychological needs considered in a causal model. Moreover, the use of self-
report measures may have inherent limitation (e.g. inability to recall, social desirability). A
combination of self-report questionnaires and objective assessments would be ideal.

Suggestion for Future Research

To confirm and validate the findings of this study, it is suggested that longitudinal
studies may be undertaken. The present study has some necessities because of its recruited
scope and selected sample. It is suggested that the further study for satisfying
psychological needs need to conduct not only for B.Ed students but also for teachers from
Basic Education and Higher Education since, regardless of gender, social class, and
cultural background, the satisfactions of the three basic psychological needs which
universally serve as the essential vitamins that energize personal growth and integrity.
Besides, it is also hoped that the findings of this study will benefit teachers, parents and
society in caring and assisting students to experience a sense of volition, mastery, and
mutual care.
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 13

Acknowledgements
I would like to convey deep and genuine thanks to Dr. Aye Aye Myint (Acting
Rector, Yangon University of Education) and Dr. Pyone Pyone Aung (Pro-Rector, Yangon
University of Education) for their official permission to do this research. Especially, I also
wish to my very profound gratitude to Dr. Khin Pyone Yi (Professor and Head of
Department of Educational Psychology, Yangon University of Education) and Dr. Naing
Naing Maw (Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Yangon University of
Education) for their encouragement and valuable comments. Moreover, I am especially
grateful to all principals and participants of this study.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-
529.
Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy
from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 84, 97-109.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The"what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. doi:
10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Human autonomy: The basis for true self – esteem. In
M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency and self – esteem (pp. 31- 49). New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life‟s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-
5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J. & Kornazheva, B. P.
(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a
former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bergmann, K. (2003). Autonomy Support and Need
Satisfaction in the Motivation and Well-Being of Gymnasts, Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 15, 372-390. doi: 10.1080/10413200390238031
14 Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2016, Vol. 6, No.1

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In A.

Davids (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp.213-233).
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon press.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain
what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically-
oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644-661. doi:
10.1037/a0014241
Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for
students and educators. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & Van de Vijver, F. (2012). Validation of the Child and Youth
Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) among Canadian youth with complex needs.
Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 219–226.
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five
decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol.
3. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 739–795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71 (3), 543–562. New
York: Wiley.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: Reflection on the past and outlook for the
next generation of research. In M. D. Glantz, J. Johnson, & L. Huffman (Eds.),
Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 289-296). New York:
Plenum Press.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon K. M, Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-
being: The role of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: Conceptual considerations, empirical findings,
and policy implications. In In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (pp. 651-682). New York : Cambridge.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.
Yangon University of Education Research Journal 2017, Vol. 7, No.1 15

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective
vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68-78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the
interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationship,
and cultures. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 145-163.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M. & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.
Sigelman, C. K. (1999). Life-span human development (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Coke.
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience. Addressing contextual and cultural
ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 1–17.
Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–
235. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bc134
Werner, E. E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J.
Meisels (Eds), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 115-132). New York:
Cambridge.
White, R. W. (1959)."Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence".
Psychological Review. 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934