Testing an Online Program to Foster Need Crafting During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a threat not only to individuals’ physical health but also to their mental health. Self-Determination Theory assumes that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence promotes psychological well-being during destabilizing times. Yet, the pandemic seriously hampered individuals’ opportunities to satisfy their needs. The current study provides a preliminary test of the effectiveness of a 7-session online program, LifeCraft, that promotes individuals’ proactive attempts to uplift their need-based experiences (i.e., need crafting). Next to the effects on individuals’ need crafting skills, we examined program-effects on adults’ need-based experiences and mental health and we explored the role of participants’ program engagement. An experimental study among 725 Belgian adults [Mage = 51.67 (range = 26 – 85); 68.55% female] was conducted, with an experimental condition of 252 and a control condition of 473 participants. At the level of the entire sample, there was limited evidence for the effectiveness of the program. There were only small immediate program-effects on need crafting and well-being. After taking into account the role of program engagement, findings showed that the program was more beneficial for participants who actively participated, with these participants reporting immediate and stable increases in need crafting, need satisfaction and well-being and decreases in need frustration. Further, changes in need crafting fully mediated changes in need-based experiences and well-being. To conclude, the findings provide initial evidence for the effectiveness of LifeCraft during the COVID-19 pandemic, with active participation being a prerequisite for the program to be effective.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Current Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03012-2
Testing anOnline Program toFoster Need Crafting During
theCOVID‑19 Pandemic
“NeleLaporte”1· DaphnevandenBogaard1· KatrijnBrenning1· BartSoenens1· MaartenVansteenkiste1
Accepted: 10 March 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a threat not only to individuals’ physical health but also to their mental health. Self-
Determination Theory assumes that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence
promotes psychological well-being during destabilizing times. Yet, the pandemic seriously hampered individuals’ opportuni-
ties to satisfy their needs. The current study provides a preliminary test of the effectiveness of a 7-session online program,
LifeCraft, that promotes individuals’ proactive attempts to uplift their need-based experiences (i.e., need crafting). Next to
the effects on individuals’ need crafting skills, we examined program-effects on adults’ need-based experiences and mental
health and we explored the role of participants’ program engagement. An experimental study among 725 Belgian adults
[Mage = 51.67 (range = 26 – 85); 68.55% female] was conducted, with an experimental condition of 252 and a control condi-
tion of 473 participants. At the level of the entire sample, there was limited evidence for the effectiveness of the program.
There were only small immediate program-effects on need crafting and well-being. After taking into account the role of
program engagement, findings showed that the program was more beneficial for participants who actively participated, with
these participants reporting immediate and stable increases in need crafting, need satisfaction and well-being and decreases
in need frustration. Further, changes in need crafting fully mediated changes in need-based experiences and well-being. To
conclude, the findings provide initial evidence for the effectiveness of LifeCraft during the COVID-19 pandemic, with active
participation being a prerequisite for the program to be effective.
Keywords COVID-19· Self-Determination Theory· Need Crafting· E-Health· Psychological Needs· Adults
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the largest
global health challenges, with more than 260 million cases
confirmed across the world in Winter 2021 (WHO, 2021).
The virus represents a threat to both individuals’ physical
and mental health as the imposed sanitary measures (e.g.,
keeping physical distance, limiting social contacts) involve
a strong rupture with individuals’ daily routines (e.g., Boden
etal., 2021; Brooks etal., 2020). The psychological impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic has been demonstrated in stud-
ies documenting increases in psychological problems (e.g.,
anxiety, depression, suicidality, substance use) and decreases
in well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, vitality) (Alzueta etal.,
2021; Blasco-Belled etal., 2020; Bueno-Notivol etal., 2021;
Czeisler etal., 2020; Nguyen & Le, 2021). The pandemic
affected the mental health of individuals across different
age groups (e.g., Cao etal., 2020; van der Kaap-Deeder
etal., 2021), cultures (e.g., Alzueta etal., 2021), and among
both individuals with pre-existing mental health problems
(Neelam etal., 2020) and individuals without a history of
mental health issues (e.g. Khan etal., 2020; Pan etal., 2021).
To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on individuals’ mental health, Self-Determination Theory
(SDT, Ryan & Deci, 2017) highlights the importance of
individuals’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, relat-
edness, and competence. These three basic psychological
needs are considered as universal ingredients of well-being
and key resources for resilience in the face of stress (Van-
steenkiste etal., 2020). Yet, due to the COVID-19 pandemic
and the introduced safety measures, individuals’ opportuni-
ties to satisfy their basic needs were seriously compromised
* “Nele Laporte”
NeleLeen.Laporte@Ugent.be
1 Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000Ghent,
Belgium

Current Psychology
1 3
(Šakan etal., 2020; van der Kaap-Deeder etal., 2021; Ver-
mote etal., 2021).
Accordingly, an important question is how we can
strengthen individuals’ capacity to seek for opportunities to
get their own psychological needs met in times of stress and
insecurity, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study,
we sought to examine the effectiveness of an online program,
LifeCraft, that aims to train individuals’ capacity to proac-
tively uplift their own need-based experiences (i.e., need
crafting). Specifically, we examined effects of this program
on individuals’ need crafting skills, need-based experiences,
and mental health. To better understand who benefits the
most from this program, we also considered the moderating
role of individuals’ program engagement.
Basic Psychological Needs asaSource ofResilience
SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), one of the
most prominent and intensively studied theories in research
on mental health, posits the basic psychological needs for
autonomy, relatedness, and competence as essential and uni-
versal nutrients for well-being and psychosocial adjustment
(Vansteenkiste etal., 2020). First, the need for autonomy
denotes the extent to which individuals experience a sense
of volition and psychological freedom in their actions,
thoughts, and feelings. The need for relatedness refers to
the experience of reciprocal care and closeness to important
others. Finally, the need for competence entails the experi-
ence of personal efficacy and mastery.
A large number of both cross-sectional and longitudi-
nal studies across different life domains, age groups, and
cultures has shown convincingly that the satisfaction of
the three basic psychological needs is growth-conducive,
whereas the frustration of these needs hampers individuals’
psychosocial functioning and increases risk for psychopa-
thology (for an overview, see Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteen-
kiste etal., 2020). Importantly, basic psychological needs
are not just ‘luxury’ products in times of prosperity. They
equally play a nurturing and protective role during insecure
times and in difficult contexts. For instance, need satisfaction
was found to contribute to higher well-being even among
individuals encountering severe financial difficulties (Tay &
Diener, 2011) or living in dangerous neighbourhoods (Chen
etal., 2015).
The COVID-19 pandemic seriously hampered individu-
als’ opportunities to get their basic needs met (Šakan etal.,
2020; Vermote etal., 2021). Due to the measures to prevent
spreading of COVID-19 virus (e.g., Brooks etal., 2020),
individuals felt restricted in their choices and were prevented
from engaging in activities congruent with their personal
interests and beliefs, thereby experiencing less autonomy
than usual. Further, due to the physical distance measures
and the limiting of social contacts, individuals were unable
to meet close others and to have physically intimate interac-
tions with them, resulting in a loss of relatedness and even in
isolation and loneliness. During the pandemic, people may
also have had fewer opportunities to experience competence,
with some people becoming (temporarily) unemployed and
with diverse leisure activities being cancelled (e.g., Kawohl
& North, 2020; Witteveen & Velthorst, 2020). Although
the COVID-19 crisis posed several challenges to individu-
als’ need satisfaction, a recent study among Belgian adults
showed that psychological need satisfaction still mattered
during the pandemic (Vermote etal., 2021). Satisfaction of
the psychological needs was found to predict higher well-
being and lower psychological distress, even when control-
ling for the insecurity experienced by people during the
COVID-19 crisis.
Need Crafting andMental Health
The observation that psychological need satisfaction contrib-
utes to better mental health during periods of crisis raises
the question whether individuals can be supported in pro-
actively uplifting their own need-based experiences. From
the perspective of SDT, individuals’ need-based experiences
do not depend solely on contextual influences (such as the
COVID-19 pandemic), but can also be influenced by indi-
viduals themselves (Ryan etal., 2019; Vansteenkiste etal.,
2020). Recent research has begun to show that individuals
can proactively uplift their need-based experiences through
the process of need crafting (Laporte etal., 2021a, b). Spe-
cifically, individuals high on need crafting are aware of the
activities, persons, and contexts that are need-conducive for
them. Equipped with this self-knowledge, they seek and cre-
ate opportunities to experience need satisfaction.
A set of initial studies among adolescents provided
evidence that need crafting relates positively to individu-
als’ need-based experiences and psychological well-being
(Laporte etal., 2021a, b). A longitudinal study by Laporte
etal., (2021a) showed that fluctuations in adolescents’ need
crafting went hand in hand with corresponding fluctuations
in need-based experiences and subsequent mental health.
These findings held even after taking into account the posi-
tive contribution of parental need support. Laporte etal.,
(2021b) showed similar associations at the level of daily
variation in individuals’ functioning.
Recent research also began to examine whether individ-
uals’ capacity for need crafting can be supported through
experimental instructions or interventions. The few avail-
able experimental studies provided initial evidence for the
malleability of need crafting in stressful times (Behzadnia &
FatahModares, 2020; Weinstein etal., 2016). In a study by
Weinstein etal., (2016), Syrian refugees were encouraged
to engage in daily need-satisfying activities by selecting a
need satisfying activity every day, using a list with suggested

Current Psychology
1 3
activities that they could discuss with the staff during a daily
personal meeting. This intervention led refugees to experi-
ence lower need frustration and less symptoms of stress and
depression at the end of the week. During the COVID-19
pandemic, Behzadnia & FatahModares, (2020) instructed
university students through text-messages to engage in need
satisfying activities during ten days, thereby also providing
daily advice on how to do the activity (e.g., do the activ-
ity with a family member). These instructions resulted in
higher need satisfaction and vitality and lower need frus-
tration and stress directly after the experimental period. In
contrast to these promising findings, a group-based interven-
tion program with adolescents (Laporte etal., 2022) dem-
onstrated limited effects on changes in participants’ need
crafting, need-based experiences, and well-being. The more
limited effectiveness of this intervention compared to the
Weinstein etal. study (2016) and the study of Behzadnia
& FatahModares, (2020) could be due to the format of the
program’s age group (i.e., adolescents instead of adults),
the level of directness and guidance (i.e., more structured
vs. open ended), the context (i.e., a safe versus a stressful
environment), or any combination of these factors.
Building on the few experimental studies available, the
current study provides a preliminary test of a program tar-
geting adults’ need crafting capacities, LifeCraft, that aims
to uplift adults’ need-based experiences and mental health
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed
to extend previous research in three ways. First, as the pro-
cedures used in the available experiments are rather time-
intensive (e.g., daily personal meetings, daily text-messages,
group meetings) and as the COVID-19 pandemic affects the
mental health of a wide range of individuals (e.g., Khan
etal., 2020), the current program was fully automated in an
online format (e.g., automatic reminders, response-driven
exercises) to increase its scalability.
Second, as previous studies (Behzadnia & FatahModares,
2020; Weinstein etal., 2016) generally examined immedi-
ate effects directly after the experimental period without
addressing more lasting changes in participants’ need-based
functioning and mental health, the current study aimed to
investigate whether it is possible to strengthen individuals’
need-based experiences and mental health in a more sustain-
able way, over a period of a month. The results of an experi-
ment by Sheldon etal., (2010)—in which participants were
instructed to engage in need-satisfying goals over a period
of six months—provided some support that lasting increases
in participants’ mental health require a lasting shift in par-
ticipants’ need-conducive behavior. To promote such more
durable changes in individuals’ need-conducive behavior, a
more profound approach was deemed necessary than ‘sim-
ply’ instructing people to engage in need-satisfying activi-
ties. It can be assumed that it is necessary to address not only
the action taking component of need crafting, but also the
awareness component of need crafting. Accordingly, the cur-
rent program was developed in an attempt to help people in
developing and cultivating a need-oriented mindset, thereby
increasing people’s knowledge and awareness of their basic
psychological needs (i.e., the awareness component of need
crafting) as well as encouraging them to take action to get
their needs met (i.e., the action taking component of need
crafting). Specifically, the program extends previous pro-
grams by adding a psycho-educational section and a series
of reflection exercises to allow people to get better in touch
with their need-based functioning (i.e., awareness). Also, to
facilitate implementation of the taught skills in participants’
daily life (i.e., action taking), we included, similar to extant
experiments (Behzadnia & FatahModares, 2020; Weinstein
etal., 2016), a series of six well-structured and rather direc-
tive challenges with corresponding homework practices.
Third, the current study also examined whether partic-
ipants differ in the extent to which they benefit from the
need-crafting program, thereby attending to the role of
program engagement. Previous prevention-based research
identified program engagement as a crucial factor affecting
the effectiveness of prevention programs, thereby indicating
that participants showing high levels of program engage-
ment benefit more from programs, compared to participants
who are only passively or minimally following the program
(e.g., Calear etal., 2013; Hansen etal., 2019; Low etal.,
2014; Lyubomirsky etal., 2011). With regard to need-based
programs more specifically, Sheldon etal.’s, (2010) experi-
mental study found a positive link between the encouraged
pursuit of need satisfying goals and individuals’ well-being
only among participants who displayed persistent efforts to
meet their goals.
The Present Study
The current study aimed to provide a preliminary test of
the effectiveness of LifeCraft, an online program targeting
individuals’ need crafting skills, during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. To control for contextual and temporary influences
on the effects of the program, we included a passive control
condition in the study, which was especially critical during
the COVID-19 crisis as individuals’ needs and mental health
varied considerably as a function of changing medical cir-
cumstances and introduced sanitary measures. Three main
research questions were central to the current research.
First, the present study aimed to investigate the effects
of the program on participants’ need crafting skills (i.e., the
mechanism of the program), need-based experiences (i.e.,
the primary outcome) and on their well-being and ill-being
(i.e., the secondary outcome). We expected that participants
in the experimental condition, relative to participants in the
control condition, would engage more in need crafting and
would experience higher need satisfaction and well-being

Current Psychology
1 3
and lower need frustration and ill-being immediately after
the program. Further, we expected that the observed ben-
efits in the experimental group would remain stable one
week and one month after the end of the program, signal-
ling that gains are not short-lived but are maintained across
time. Second, we examined the role of participants’ program
engagement. We expected that especially participants who
were highly engaged would benefit more from the positive
effects of the program (Hypothesis 2). Third, we formally
examined whether need crafting is the mechanism of the
program, with program-induced changes in need crafting
mediating changes in the primary and secondary outcomes
(Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
Participants were Dutch-speaking Belgian adults randomly
selected out of a broader sample of people who participated
in a large-scale study on psychological well-being during
the COVID-19 crisis (i.e., the Motivation Barometer study,
see https:// motiv ation barom eter. com/ en/ onder zoek/) and
who were willing to participate to follow-up research. The
only inclusion criterion was that participants were between
26 and 85years old. After the random selection of partici-
pants, participants were randomly assigned to the experi-
mental condition or the passive control condition. Partici-
pants were contacted by e-mail to invite them to participate
and to inform them about the content and goals of the study.
Specifically, participants assigned to the experimental con-
dition were invited to participate in an online program that
aimed to strengthen their mental health during the COVID-
19 crisis. Participants assigned to the control condition were
invited to a follow-up survey study investigating individu-
als’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. When the
study was finished, all participants of the control condition
were informed about the overarching research objectives and
were given the opportunity to follow the program. Active
informed consent was obtained from all participants. Par-
ticipation was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed.
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the organizing
university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB; 2020/62).
We contacted a total of 2600 adults and we deliberately
assigned more participants to the experimental condition
than to the control condition (with a ration of about 3:2)
because we observed in previous pilot studies that the par-
ticipation grade was much lower in the experimental condi-
tion compared to the control condition. Of the initial partici-
pants that were contacted, 871 adults filled out the baseline
measurement, of which 398 participants were part of the
experimental condition and 473 participants were part of
the control condition. Yet, out of the 398 participants in the
experimental condition who filled out the baseline meas-
urement, 146 participants did not start the program after
filling out the baseline measurement and were excluded
from the sample. The final sample consists of 725 partici-
pants (Nexp = 252; Ncon = 473). Figure1 shows the retention
of participants across the several stages of the study. The
mean age of the participants was 51.67years (SD = 13.52,
range = 26–85) and the sample was 68.55% female. Some
participants indicated that they currently received psy-
chological help (12.28%) or had received help in the past
(45.52%). Regarding employment, 57.66% of the partici-
pants were employed.
Procedure
Participants assigned to the experimental condition followed
a Dutch online program, LifeCraft, consisting of six practi-
cal sessions (± 10min) followed by a homework assignment
and a seventh reflective session. Table1 provides detailed
information about the content of this online program. Each
practical session consisted of an instruction video about
a basic need and the accompanying daily challenge (i.e.,
homework assignment) that participants were supposed to
execute, a brainstorm exercise about one basic psychologi-
cal need (session 1–3) or a testimony (session 4–6), and an
action plan exercise concerning the homework assignment
(sessions 1–6). Session 7 involved booster exercises with an
option to make a personal action plan. On top of that, the
first session also contained an animated psycho-education
video about the theoretical background of LifeCraft. The
homework assignment and the action plan exercise aimed
to increase the execution of need crafting intentions (i.e. the
action component), whereby the action plan was based on
the implementation literature (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer
& Brandstätter, 1997; Koestner etal., 2002). The other ele-
ments of the program were developed to increase the aware-
ness component of need crafting to facilitate the selection
of need-satisfying activities. Participants got access to each
session through a daily automatic e-mail with the link to the
next session. Participants were free to attend the training at
a time of their choice, but were asked to complete the whole
program within 7 to 14days.
To assess the immediate and short term effectiveness of
the LifeCraft program, participants were asked to fill out a
battery of questionnaires at four moments in time through
an online application (i.e., Qualtrics), which was the same
application as used for the online program itself. The base-
line assessment took place at the start of the program (T1;
December 2020), the post assessment at the end of the pro-
gram (T2), and the follow-up assessments at one week (T3)
and one month (T4) after the end of the program. Also, a
short diary assessment was administered each day during the

Current Psychology
1 3
program to assess the degree to which participants managed
to effectively execute their daily planned need-satisfying
activity.1 Participants in the control condition filled out the
same battery of questionnaires at the same time and in the
same way as participants in the experimental condition, but
did not go through the program.
Measures
At each measurement wave, a similar battery of question-
naires was administered. An exception was the measurement
of program engagement, which was assessed during the six
daily assessments after each of the practical sessions. We
asked participants to answer the questions regarding the
Fig. 1 Flow of participants
through the study
Participants invited for the study
N =1650
Participants invited for the study
N = 950
Baseline measurement (T1)
N = 398
Baseline measurement
N = 473
Post measurement (T2)
N = 358
1-Week follow-up(T3)
N = 296
Post measurement (T2)
N = 95
1-Week follow-up(T3)
N = 59
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONCONTROL CONDITION
Introducing psycho-education session
N = 252
1-Month follow-up(T4)
N = 51
1-Month follow-up(T4)
N = 244
Practical session & diary assessment 1
N = 184
Practical session & diary assessment 2
N = 161
Practical session & diary assessment 3
N = 129
Practical session & diary assessment 4
N = 110
Practical session & diary assessment 5
N = 94
Practical session & diary assessment 6
N = 95
Diary assessment 1
N = 389
Diary assessment 2
N = 375
Diary assessment 3
N = 349
Diary assessment 4
N = 355
Diary assessment 5
N = 352
Diary assessment 6
N = 355
1 The present study also assessed participants' daily need-based expe-
riences. However, these data were not included in the current report
as the focus of this study is on the enduring effectiveness of LifeCraft.

Current Psychology
1 3
Table 1 Summary of program content
Session 1: Psycho-education session
(10min)
(1) Introduction to the program
(2) Facilitating participants’ knowledge about basic psychological needs
and need crafting
(1) Introduction of content and structure of the program and introduction of
the interventionist (film clip presented by interventionist)
(2) Psycho-education on the basic psychological needs and their role in
individual’s psychosocial well-being (animated film clip); Psycho-educa-
tion on how individuals could nurture their own need-based experiences
(animated film clip)
Session 2, 3, 4 (basic sessions)
(10min + homework assignment)
Session 2: autonomy
Session 3: relatedness
Session 4: competence
(1) Facilitating participants’ awareness to their needs
(2) Encourage participants to engage in a need-satisfying activity (home-
work assignment):
(3) Facilitating participants’ goal attainment
(1) Psycho-education on the application of the need in daily life (film clip
presented by interventionist); Reflection exercise on participants’ own
need-based experiences; Brainstorm exercise on activities that nurture that
need
(2) Homework assignment instructing participants to engage the next day
in an activity that satisfy the highlighted need (e.g., “engage in an activity
you really feel like doing”; autonomy (session 2))
(3) Psycho-education on the importance of concretizing goals (film clip
presented by interventionist); Exercise on concretize their own activities of
the homework assignment (i.e., what, when, were, with whom)
Session 5, 6, 7 (in-depth sessions)
(10min + homework assignment)
Session 5: autonomy
Session 6: relatedness
Session 7: competence
(1) Facilitating participants’ awareness to their needs
(2) Encourage participants to engage in a need-satisfying activity (home-
work assignment)
(3) Facilitating participants’ goal attainment
(1) More in-depth psycho-education on the highlighted need (film clip pre-
sented by interventionist); Alternative applications of the need in daily life
(film clip presented by interventionist)
(2) Homework assignment instructing participants to engage the next day in
an alternative activity that satisfy the highlighted need (e.g., “engage in an
activity that matches with your values”; autonomy (session 5))
(3) Psycho-education on possible obstacles that keep participants from
nurturing their own needs and on solutions to handle this obstacles (peer
testimony film clip); Reflection exercise identifying personal obstacles
Booster exercises
(included in post-assessment)
(1) Facilitating long-term changes in participants’ need-based functioning
(2) Facilitating participants’ independent need-based functioning
(1) Structured questions including reflections on what they learned and
personalized tips for themselves (e.g., What stays with you about the pro-
gram; What advice would you like to give yourself in future). Participants
received their own advice three weeks after the end of the workshop by
e-mail
(2) Tool to make a personal action plan (optional): setting goals for the next
week, concretize this goals (i.e., what, when, were, with whom)

Current Psychology
1 3
past week. Cronbach’s alphas of the scales are presented
in Table2.
Need Crafting
Participants filled out six items of the Need Crafting Scale
(NCS; ), with two items tapping into the crafting of each of
the three needs. Within each of the needs, there was one item
tapping into the awareness component (e.g., “It was clear to
me in which activities I can use my capacities effectively”,
for competence) and one item tapping into the action com-
ponent (e.g.,” I contacted people who are dear to me”, for
relatedness). Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (completely not true) to 7 (completely true).
Need‑Based Experiences
Participants’ need-based experiences were assessed using
the 12-item short version of the BPNSNF-scale (BPNSNF;
Chen, Van Assche, etal., 2015; Chen, Vansteenkiste, etal.,
2015). For each need, there were two items tapping into sat-
isfaction (e.g., “I felt free to choose which activities I did”,
for autonomy satisfaction) and two items tapping into frus-
tration (e.g., “I often had doubts about whether I’m good at
things”, for competence frustration). Items were scored on
a 5-point Likert scale going from 1 (completely not true) to
5 (completely true).
Well‑Being
To measure well-being, participants completed one item
(e.g., “I was satisfied with my life”) from the Satisfaction
with Life Scale (SWLS: Diener etal., 1985) and three items
(e.g., “I looked forward to every day”) of the Subjective
Vitality Measurement (SVM; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Par-
ticipants rated items on a 4-point Likert scale going from 1
(rarely or never) to 4 (usually or constantly). Correlations
between both scales ranged between 0.66 and 0.74 across
the four waves. To create an overall score for well-being,
both scales were standardized and averaged into a composite
score.
Ill‑Being
To assess ill-being, participants filled out a 6-item version
(Van Hiel & Vansteenkiste, 2009) of the Center for Epi-
demiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D: Radloff,
1977) (e.g., “I could not get going”) and one item (e.g.,
“I felt sleepy, drowsy or dull”) of the Insomnia subscale of
the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS;
Watson etal., 2007). Items were scored on a 4-point Likert
scale going from 1 (rarely or never) to 4 (usually or con-
stantly). Correlations between both scales ranged between
0.54 and 0.67 across the four waves. To create an overall
score for ill-being, both scales were standardized and aver-
aged into a composite score.
Program Engagement
After each of the six practical sessions, participants in the
experimental condition completed a single item targeting
their performance of the homework assignment that day (i.e.,
“To what extent did you succeed in your activity today?”).
Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (completely not performed) to 5 (completely performed).
Plan ofAnalysis
The main hypotheses were examined using latent change
models (i.e., LCMs) in Mplus 8.4. (Muthén & Muthén,
2017). To estimate absolute change between the assess-
ments, these models include latent variables for both inter-
cepts (i.e., level) and slopes (i.e., change over time) (Beyers
& Goossens, 2008; De Clercq etal., 2020). To evaluate the
goodness of fit of the LCMs, we used a combination of the
Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the
Standardized-Root-Square Residual (SRMR) and the Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI), with a combination of RMSEA
value below 0.08, SRMR value below 0.08 and CFI value
of 0.90 or more suggesting a good model fit (Hu & Bentler,
1999; Kline, 2005). Further, Little’s, (1988) missing com-
pletely at random (MCAR) test on the variables of inter-
est yielded a normed chi-square of 1.19. According to
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistencies of Key Constructs at Four Waves
Means Standard Deviation Internal Consist-
encies
Range
MT1 MT2 MT3 MT4 SDT1 SDT2 SDT3 SDT4 αT1 αT2 αT3 αT4 Min-MaxT1 Min-MaxT2 Min-MaxT3 Min-MaxT4
Need crafting 4.99 5.12 5.07 5.04 1.02 1.11 1.18 1.18 .80 .88 .88 .88 1.0—7.00 1.17 – 7.00 1.00 – 7.00 1.00 – 7.00
Need satisfaction 3.61 3.71 3.71 3.65 .63 .68 .73 .73 .80 .86 .87 .87 1.17 – 5.00 1.00- 5.00 1.00 – 5.00 1.00 – 5.00
Need frustration 2.39 2.29 2.18 2.26 .74 .73 .78 .83 .81 .85 .87 .87 1.00 – 4.50 1.00 – 4.50 1.00 – 4.83 1.00 – 5.00
Well-being 2.53 2.60 2.64 2.61 .85 .87 .87 .90 .87 .89 .89 .90 1.00 – 4.00 1.00 – 4.00 1.00 – 4.00 1.00 – 4.00
Ill-being 1.73 1.67 1.65 1.67 .56 .60 .58 .66 .84 .86 .85 .88 1.00 – 3.86 1.00 – 3.71 1.00 – 3.86 1.00 – 4.00

Current Psychology
1 3
guidelines provided by Bollen, (1989), this indicates that
data were probably missing at random and that the missing
data could be estimated reliably.
First, we built a longitudinal measurement model describ-
ing the latent level and three latent change factors (i.e.,
change from T1 to T2, from T2 to T3 and from T3 to T4)
for each of the five study variables (i.e., need crafting, need
satisfaction, need frustration, well-being, and ill-being). As
all variables were multidimensional constructs, we used an
internal-consistency approach (Kishton & Widaman, 1994),
thereby using the corresponding subscales as indicators for
their latent factors. The need-specific subscales of need-
crafting (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness need
crafting) were used as indicators of need crafting. Similarly,
the three need-specific subscales were used as indicators of
need satisfaction and need frustration. Life satisfaction and
vitality were used as indicators of well-being and depressive
symptoms and fatigue were used as indicators of ill-being.
Second, we estimated five univariate LCMs for all study
variables separately. These models describe the mean-level
change from T1 to T2, from T2 to T3, and from T3 to T4,
thereby indicating whether the mean-level and change
parameters vary significantly between participants.
Third, we estimated two structural versions of each
LCM to test our main hypotheses. To examine the effects
of condition on change in the study variables across all
participants, a first series of LCMs was estimated includ-
ing condition (i.e., dummy coded: 0 = control condition;
1 = experimental condition) as a predictor (see Fig.2,
Hypothesis 1). Next, we estimated a second series of LCMs
to examine the role of participants’ program engagement
(see Fig.2, Hypothesis 2). For this aim, we first created
two groups within the experimental condition, with the
one group including participants who were highly engaged
and the other group including participants who were lit-
tle engaged. In a first step, we recoded participants’ daily
scores (i.e., 1–5) of execution of the homework assign-
ments into categorical variables, thereby recoding scores
of 3 or below (i.e., “I executed the homework assignment
partially” to “I completely did not execute the homework
assignment”) as low participation and scores of 4 or above
(i.e., “I executed the homework assignment fairy well” to
“I completely executed the homework assignment”) as high
participation. In a second step, we assigned participants
who participated highly to the majority of the six home-
work assignments (i.e., ≥ 4 sessions) to the high engage-
ment group (n = 72, 28.57 %) and participants who dis-
played low participation to a majority of the homework
assignments (i.e., ≤ ≥ 4 sessions) to the low engagement
group (n = 180, 71.43 %). Next, two dummy variables were
created, with the first dummy contrasting the control group
with the high engagement group (i.e., contrast 1) and with
the second dummy contrasting the control group with the
low engagement group (i.e., contrast 2). Both contrasts
were then included as predictors in the LCMs.
Finally, we estimated a serial mediation LCM to inves-
tigate the mediating role of changes in need crafting in
program effects on changes in need-based experiences
and mental health (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Fig.2, this
model included the two dummy variables representing the
condition effects (i.e., contrast 1 and contrast 2) as predic-
tors of T1-to-T2 change in need crafting, which then pre-
dicted T1-to-T2 change in need-based experiences (i.e., need
satisfaction and need frustration) which, in turn, predicted
T1-to-T2 changes in the mental health outcomes (i.e., well-
being and ill-being). The significance of indirect effects was
computed using the Model Indirect command in Mplus.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Background Characteristics
Descriptive information of the study variables is presented
in Table2 and the correlations between all variables are
presented in Table3. To investigate the associations between
the background variables (i.e., gender, age, employment,
psychological help in the past and psychological help in
the present) and the study variables, we conducted a MAN-
COVA with gender, employment, previous psychological
help and current psychological help as fixed factors, with
age as a covariate, and with the study variables as depend-
ent variables. There were no overall effects for gender
(Wilks’s λ = 0.90, F(21,246) = 1.25, p = 0.21), age (Wilks’s
λ = 0.89, F(21,246) = 1.39, p = 0.13), employment (Wilks’s
λ = 0.94, F(21,246) = 0.80, p = 0.72), psychological help
in the past (Wilks’s λ = 0.92, F(21,246) = 1.05, p = 0.41)
nor for psychological help in the present (Wilks’s λ = 0.92,
F(21,246) = 1.07, p = 0.39).
Baseline Differences Between theConditions
To examine baseline differences between the experimental
condition and the control condition, we conducted a MAN-
COVA with condition as a fixed factor and with the study
variables at T1 and the continuous background variable
(i.e., age) as dependent variables. Results indicated that
the overall multivariate effect of condition was non-signif-
icant (Wilks’s λ = 0.99, F(6,718) = 1.75, p = 0.11). Further,
we conducted a chi-square test to investigate differences
between both conditions in terms of the categorical back-
ground variables (i.e., gender, employment, psychological
help in the past, psychological help in the present). The
results indicated that there were no differences between both

Current Psychology
1 3
Fig. 2 Latent change models
of hypothesis 1, 2 and 3. Note
1. NC = need crafting; NS =
need satisfaction; NF = need
frustration; WB = well-being;
IB = ill-being; T1= baseline
measurement; T2 = post
measurement; T3 = 1-week
follow-up measurement; T4
= 1-month followup meas-
urement; Level = Intercept;
Change = Slope; Contrast 1 =
Dummy contrasting the control
group with the high engagement
group; Contrast 2 = Dummy
constrasting the control group
with the low engagement
group. Note 2. Hypothesis 1 =
Investigating the effects of the
program on need crafting, need-
based experiences and mental
health 1 week and 1 month
after the training; Hypothesis 2:
Investigating whether especially
participants who were highly
engaged would benefit more
from the positive effects of the
program.; Hypothesis 3: Inves-
tigating whether need crafting is
the mechanism of the program.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Change
T3-to-T4
Condition
Level Change
T1-to-T2
Change
T2-to-T3
Change
T3-to-T4
Contrast 1
Level Change
T1-to-T2
Change
T2-to-T3
Contrast 2
Contrast
1
Level
NC
Change
T1-to-T2 NC
Change
T1-to-T2 NS
Level
NS
Contrast
2
Change
T1-T2WB
Change
T1-to-T2 IB
Change
T1-to-T2 NF
Level
NF
Level
WB
Level
IB
Hypothesis 3
conditions in terms of gender (2(1) = 0.25 p = 0.62), employ-
ment (2(1) = 0.70, p = 0.40), psychological help in the past
(2(1) = 0.53, p = 0.47) and psychological help in the present
(2(1) = 3.371, p = 05). Overall, these analyses indicate that
the randomization to the two conditions was successful.
Drop‑Out Analyses
Next, to investigate whether dropout during the program
was related to the study variables, we conducted a MAN-
COVA with drop-out (i.e., 0 = no drop-out during the
program or daily assessments; 1 = drop-out during the
program or daily assessments) as a fixed factor and with
the study variables at T1 and the continuous background
variable (i.e., age) as dependent variables. Results indi-
cated that there was an overall effect of drop-out (Wilks’s
λ = 0.98, F(8,716) = 2.09, p = < 0.05), with drop-out
being related to the age of participants (F(1,725) = 9.58,
p < 0.01) and to baseline levels of need satisfaction
(F(1,725) = 5.29, p < 0.05). Specifically, participants
who dropped out were younger (M = 50.12) and reported
lower levels of need satisfaction (M = 3.55), compared
to participants who stayed in the program (Mage = 53.21;
Mns = 3.66). Further, we conducted a chi-square test
to investigate whether dropout during the program was
related to the categorical background variables (i.e., gen-
der, employment, previous psychological help, current
psychological help). The results indicated that dropout was

Current Psychology
1 3
Table 3 Correlations between Measured Constructs during Four Waves
Note. a = Time 1, b = Time 2, c = Time 3, d = Time 4; NC = need crafting, NS = need satisfaction, NF = need frustration, WB = well-being, IB = ill-being ***p < .001,**p < .01,*p < .05
1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 1c 2c 3c 4c 5c 1d 2d 3d 4d
Variables T1
1a. NC
2a. NS .66***
3a. NF -.58*** -.78***
4a. WB .55*** .65*** -.65***
5a. IB -.53*** -.64*** .73*** -.73***
Variables T2
1b. NC .77*** .66*** -.54*** .48*** -.52*** -.32*** -.27***
2b. NS .68*** -.82*** -.72*** .64*** -.68*** -.44*** -.37*** .79***
3b. NF -.57*** -.73*** .82*** -.60*** .73*** .52*** .51*** -.64*** -.81***
4b. WB .62*** .68*** -.66*** .79*** -.70*** -.46*** -.36*** .66*** .74*** -.69***
5b. IB -.50*** -.61*** .65*** -.63*** .86*** .47*** .41*** -.57*** -.70*** .74*** -.69***
Variables T3
1c. NC .72*** .59*** -.48*** .48*** -.50*** -.33*** -.28*** .85*** .68*** -.58*** .62*** -.55***
2c. NS .65*** .75*** -.65*** .60*** -.64*** -.39*** -.38*** .74*** .82*** -.75*** .70*** -.65*** .76***
3c. NF -.56*** -.68*** .73*** -.56*** .68*** .50*** .49*** -.63*** -.75*** .80*** -.65*** .67*** -.65*** -.86***
4c. WB .61*** .66*** -.60*** .78*** -.71*** -.41*** -.35*** .61*** .70*** -.64*** .86*** -.67*** .61*** .71*** -.65***
5c. IB -.51*** -.65*** .68*** -.63*** .83*** .50*** .44*** -.56*** -.69*** .73*** -.68 .82*** -.57*** -.74*** .79*** -.75***
Variables T4
1d. NC .73*** .62*** -.52*** .51*** -.52*** .28*** -.28*** .82*** .69*** -.61*** .63*** -.53*** .82*** .71*** -.59*** .59*** -.54***
2d. NS .66*** .75*** -.70*** .61*** -.67*** -.45*** -.41*** .73*** .81*** -.74*** .69*** -.64*** .70*** .81*** -.76*** .67*** -.69*** .79***
3d. NF -.59*** -.71*** .78*** .78*** .73*** .53*** .49*** -.61*** -.76*** .84*** -.68*** .71*** -.59*** -.73*** .81*** -.66*** .74*** -.64*** -.81***
4d. WB .56*** .65*** -.65*** -.63*** -.68*** -.51*** -.43*** .58*** .68*** -.66*** .83*** -.64*** .55*** .65*** -.65*** .83*** -.69*** .63*** .71*** -.72***
5d. IB -.50*** -.63*** .68*** .45*** .82*** .55*** .47*** -.53*** -.68*** .71*** -.66*** .79*** -.53*** -.68*** .75*** -.71*** .85*** -.56*** -.74*** .81*** -.75***

Current Psychology
1 3
not related to employment (2(1) = 0.45, p = 0.50), previ-
ous psychological help (2(1) = 1.18, p = 0.28) and current
psychological help (2(1) = 0.59, p = 44). Yet, the results
showed that drop-out was related to gender (2(1) = 9.89,
p < 0.01), with a higher percentage of female participants
dropping out (53.72%), compared to male participants
(41.07%).
Primary Analyses
We first estimated five univariate LCMs to investigate
mean-level change and variability in change in each of
the study variables (i.e., need crafting, need satisfaction,
need frustration, well-being, ill-being). Table4 presents
an overview of the parameter estimates and fit indices for
each study variable. Results indicated that from T1 to T2,
mean levels of well-being and ill-being remained stable,
whereas need crafting and need satisfaction increased
and need frustration decreased. Also, the results showed
that from T2 to T3 the mean-level of need crafting, need
satisfaction, well-being and ill-being remained stable,
while need frustration decreased. From T3 to T4, mean
levels of need crafting and ill-being remained stable,
whereas the results showed a decrease in need satisfac-
tion and well-being and an increase in need frustration.
Further, the results indicated significant variances in the
slope for all latent variables, suggesting that there are
substantial differences between persons in how the study
variables changed over time. Importantly, the univariate
LCMs for need crafting and need satisfaction did not
show an optimal fit, so the results of these models need
to be interpreted with caution.
Hypothesis 1: Overall Effectiveness oftheOnline
Prevention Program
Figure3 and Table5 show the results of the models exam-
ining condition as a predictor of change in need crafting
(i.e., the presumed mechanism of change), the need-based
experiences (i.e., the primary outcomes), and the mental
health outcomes (i.e., the secondary outcomes). First, we
discuss the effect of condition on change in need crafting
and the need-based experiences. The results demonstrated
that condition related positively to T1-to-T2 change in
need crafting, but not significantly to T1-to-T2 change in
need satisfaction and need frustration. Specifically, par-
ticipants assigned to the experimental condition reported
increases in need crafting from T1 to T2, whereas par-
ticipants in the control condition remained stable. Fur-
ther, condition did not relate significantly to T2-to-T3
change, nor to T3-to-T4 change in any of the primary
Table 4 Parameter Estimates and Fit indices of the Univariate Latent Change Models
Note. ***p < .001,**p < .01,*p < .05
Parameter estimates Fit indices
Level Change T1-to-T2 Change T2-to-T3 Change T3-to-T4
M s2M s2M s2M s2CFI RMSEA SRMR
Need crafting 5.01 (.04)*** .82 (.08)*** .10 (.03) ** .22 (.04)*** -.02 (.03) .17 (.04) *** -.08 (.04) .34 (.07) *** .94 .08 .23
Need satisfaction 3.34 (.03)*** .22 (.02) *** .06 (.02) ** .04 (.01) ** .00 (.02) .08 (.02) *** -.07 (.03) *.12 (.03) *** .97 .05 .10
Need frustration 2.69 (.04)*** .48 (.04) *** -.06 (.03) *.07 (.02) *** -.12 (.03) *** .14 (.03) *** .13 (.03) *** .13 (.03) *** 1.00 .01 .03
Well-being 2.89 (.04) *** .72 (.04) *** 03 (.03) .20 (.03) *** .03 (.03) .08 (.03) ** -.08 (.03) *.15 (.04) *** 1.00 .00 .01
Ill-being 1.67 (.02)*** .24 (.02) *** -.02 (.02) .04 (.01) *** -.02 (.02) .07 (.02) *** .04 (.02) .06 (.02) ** 1.00 .02 .03

Current Psychology
1 3
outcomes. Regarding the secondary outcomes, condition
related positively to T1-to-T2 change in well-being, but
not to any change in ill-being. Specifically, participants in
the experimental condition showed increased well-being
from T1 to T2, whereas participants in the control condi-
tion remained stable. Next, condition was unrelated to any
T2-to-T3 change and T3-to-T4 change in the secondary
outcomes.
Fig. 3 Latent Change Models (Hypothesis 1)

Current Psychology
1 3
Hypothesis 2: The Role ofProgram Engagement
To investigate the effects of program engagement on change
in the outcomes across the time periods (T1-to-T2, T2-to-T3
and T3-to-T4), we conducted similar LCMs as for Hypoth-
esis 1 but now differentiating between participants with low
and high program engagement. Table6 presents the results.
First, we discuss the program effects on change in need-
crafting and the need-based experiences for both the high
engaged group (in comparison with the control condition,
i.e. contrast 1) and the low engaged group (in comparison
with the control condition, i.e. contrast 2). We found sig-
nificant program-effects on T1-to-T2 change for the high
engaged group in need-crafting, need satisfaction, and need
frustration, while such program-effects were not found for
the low engaged group. These findings indicate that partici-
pants who were highly engaged in the program, but not par-
ticipants who were low engaged, reported greater increases
in need crafting and need satisfaction and a greater decrease
in need frustration from T1 to T2, compared to participants
in the control condition, who remained stable. Regarding
T2-to-T3 change and regarding T3-to-T4 change, we did not
find any significant program-effects on change for either the
high engaged group and low engaged group. These findings
indicate that the immediate benefits of the program in partic-
ipants’ need crafting and need-based experiences remained
stable over a period of one week and one month.
Second, we consider the program-effects on the sec-
ondary outcomes (i.e., well-being and ill-being) for both
the high engaged group and low engaged group. The
results showed a significant program-effect on T1-to-T2
change in well-being, but not in ill-being for the high
engaged group. No program effects for the low engaged
group were found on either T1-to-T2 change in well-
being and T1-to-T2 change in ill-being. The findings
mirrored those obtained for need crafting and the need-
based experiences and indicate that participants who were
highly engaged in the program reported increased well-
being from T1 to T2, whereas participants who showed
low engagement or participants in the control condition
did not display any effects on well-being. Further, no
program-effects on change in ill-being from T2 to T3 nor
on change from T3 to T4 were found for either the high
engaged group and the low engaged group, indicating the
obtained well-being benefits of the program did not dis-
sipate across time.
Hypothesis 3: Need Crafting astheMediating Mechanism
oftheProgram
The third aim was to test whether need crafting is an inter-
vening variable explaining the program-effects on need-
based experiences and mental health. The results of a serial
mediation LCM (RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.10)
are presented in Fig.4. We only discuss the results regarding
the group of highly engaged participants, as we only found
program-effects for in this group in our testing of Hypoth-
esis 2.
The results show that the program-effect on need
crafting (i.e., the T1-to-T2 change in need crafting) was
positively related to T1-to-T2 change in need satisfaction
and negatively to T1-to-T2 change in need frustration. In
turn, T1-to-T2 change in need satisfaction was positively
related to T1-to-T2 change in well-being, whereas T1-to-
T2 change in need frustration was positively related to
T1-to-T2 change in ill-being. Moreover, all indirect
pathways in this model were statistically significant.
Specifically, the indirect pathway from the program-
effect on T1-to-T2 change in well-being via T1-to-T2
change in need crafting and need satisfaction (b = 0.14,
SE = 0.050, p < 0.01), as well as the indirect pathway
from the program-effect on T1-to-T2 change in ill-being
via T1-to-T2 change in need crafting and need frustra-
tion were significant (b = -0.10, SE = 0.039, p < 0.05).
The original direct program-effects for the high engaged
group on need satisfaction, need frustration and well-
being disappeared after taking into account the indirect
associations through need crafting (and through need-
based experiences).
Table 5 Latent Change Models
(Hypothesis 1)
Note. ***p < .001,**p < .01,*p < .05,+ p < .10
Change T1-to-T2 Change T2-to-T3 Change T3-to-T4
Level Condition Level Condition Level Condition
β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)
need crafting .06 (.094) .23 (.076)** -.08 (.101) -.14 (.089) -.02 (.074) -.00 (.093)
need satisfaction .22 (.137) .18 (.100) +-.08 (.102) -.09 (.090) -.06 (.101) .12 (.094)
need frustration -.15 (.099) -.10 (.092) -.13 (.093) -.12 (.090) .14 (.107) -.12 (.123)
well-being -.29 (.051)*** .18 (.066)** -.03 (.101) -.10 (.124) .01 (.087) -.01 (.100)
ill-being -.12 (.093) -.08 (.081) -.14 (.092) .062 (.077) .26 (.123)* .00 (.095)

Current Psychology
1 3
Discussion
Effectiveness oftheOnline Prevention Program
LifeCraft
The overall aim of this study was to test the effectiveness
of an online prevention program targeting the capacity for
need crafting (LifeCraft) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A first specific goal was to examine whether this online pro-
gram would contribute to individuals’ need crafting skills
and need-based experiences. The current study provided
evidence for the effectiveness of the LifeCraft program in
strengthening participants’ need-crafting skills as those par-
ticipants who followed the program (including homework
assignments) reported to engage significantly more in need
crafting compared to participants in the control group. As
the effect on need crafting remained stable over a period of
one month, the benefits of the program were not fleeting
but lasted for at least one month. A similar adaptive pattern
was found for participants’ well-being (but not on ill-being),
with participants who followed the program experiencing
increased well-being at the end of the program, compared to
participants in the control condition, who remained stable.
Overall, it is important to note that the effects observed
were only small to medium in terms of effect size (Acock,
2008). This finding is consistent with previous meta-analy-
ses, which found that universal prevention programs often
show weaker effects compared to selective or targeted pro-
grams (e.g., Sanchez etal., 2018; Stice etal., 2007, 2009).
Nonetheless, these rather small-sized effects were qualified
by participants’ level of engagement. Consistent with previous
research (Sheldon etal., 2010) we found that only partici-
pants who actively participated to the homework assignments
benefit from LifeCraft. Specifically, after completing the pro-
gram and successfully executing a majority of the homework
assignments, participants reported to engage more in need
crafting and experienced greater need satisfaction and lower
need frustration. Also, the results showed that these partici-
pants experienced additional increases in well-being (but no
decreases in ill-being) at the end of the program. In contrast,
participants who followed the entire program, but who only
completed a minority of the homework assignments did not
reap any beneficial effects of the program.
The observation that the main effect of the LifeCraft pro-
gram in the entire sample was rather limited, together with
the fact that those actively involved clearly reaped benefits,
indicate that active practicing at home seems a pre-requisite
for the program to be effective. These findings suggest that
psycho-education alone is not sufficient to uplift individuals’
need-based functioning. The strength of the program lies
not only in knowing what to do, but also in actually doing
these activities.
Table 6 Latent Change Models (Hypothesis 2)
Note. Contrast 1 = control condition versus high engagement group; Contrast 2 = control condition versus low engagement group; ***p < .001,**p < .01,*p < .05
Level T1-to-T2 Change T2-to-T3 Change T3-to-T4 Change
β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β (SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)β(SE)
Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Level Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Level Contrast 1 Contrast 2 Level Contrast 1 Contrast 2
Need
crafting
.16 (.033)*** -.02 (.039) -.15 (.067)* .15
(.042)***
.01 (.150) -.094
(.093)
-.12 (.062) .04 (.140) -.02 (.077) .02 (.065) -.12 (.157)
Need satis-
faction
.06 (.040) -.08 (.044) .10 (.112) .13 (.067)* -.03 (.177) -.09 (.102) -.07 (.069) -.02 (.126) -.05 (.101) .08 (.072) .08 (.144)
Need frus-
tration
-.06(.042) .06 (.045) -.10 (.094) -.13 (.066)* .25 (.166) -.13 (.094) -.07 (.063) -.15 (.140) .17 (.109) -.08 (.083) -.17 (.246)
Well-being .01 (.043) -.09 (.041)* -.30
(.050)***
.15 (.051)** .01 (.083) -.02 (.102) -.08 (.092) -.04 (.197) .01 (.087) -.03 (.062) .09 (.234)
Ill-being -.08 (.036)* .06 (.043) -.12 (.094) -.07 (.061) .00 (.113) -.14 (.092) .02 (.055) .127 (.117) .25 (.121)* .05 (.061) -.21 (.200)

Current Psychology
1 3
Because changes in need crafting are assumed to be the
working mechanism behind the effectiveness of the LifeCraft
program, we formally examined whether the program effects
for the high engaged participants on their need-based expe-
riences and mental health could be explained by program
effects on need crafting. As expected, program effects on
need crafting were found to fully explain the program effects
on participants’ need-based experiences. Moreover, through
serial mediation analyses, we found that improvements in
participants’ well-being can be explained by improvements
in need satisfaction via program effects on need crafting.
These results indicate that need crafting is indeed the driving
mechanism behind the LifeCraft program.
When interpreting the results of the current study, it is
important to bear in mind that only a limited number of par-
ticipants completed the entire program. The relatively large
drop-out from the program raises two concerns. The group
of participants who completed the program may represent a
selective subgroup of participants not entirely representative
of the population. Participants who dropped-out were indeed
found to score lower on need satisfaction at the baseline
assessment. Although there were few other differences, there
is a concern that people who completed the program may have
more energy available to persist in the required homework
assignments. Another concern deals with the implementation
of the program in practice. With such substantial drop-out
rates, the program apparently has a limited reach and even
risks to miss people who need the program the most.
One explanation for the rather low participation rate, is
that participants felt less related with the program as they had
no personal contact with anyone of the researchers or other
participants. Indeed, in other need-based experiments partici-
pants were in touch with the interventionist or even with other
participants through daily meetings (Weinstein etal., 2016)
or through a WhatsApp group (Behzadnia & FatahModares,
2020). However, the downside of such personal contact is
that those programs are more time-intensive, thereby creating
difficulties to widely implement the programs.
A second possibility is that some participants lost their
motivation during the program as the program did not suf-
ficiently match with their time table, needs and skills. For
instance, it is possible that the homework assignments
were too time-consuming, overly challenging or too easy,
or were not congruent with the interests of participants who
dropped out. Future versions of this program could offer
diverse levels of the homework assignments, so the par-
ticipants have the freedom to adjust the exercises to their
capacities, interests, and possibilities.
Limitations andDirections forFurther Research
Although this work is a promising step in research on the
online promotion of need-based experiences and mental
health, the present work has also several limitations.
First, because participants’ need-based experiences and
mental health are possibly affected by the stressors and
lifestyle changes introduced by the pandemic (e.g., Šakan
etal., 2020; Vermote etal., 2021), the current study does
not allow for any claims about the effectiveness of the Life-
Craft program outside the COVID-19 pandemic. It is, for
instance, possible that a program targeting need crafting is
more relevant during such stressful times, as it may have
been a welcome support for individuals to seek alternative
ways to satisfy their psychological needs while confronting
the challenges of the pandemic. Accordingly, it remains an
open question whether the observed effects would generalize
to periods in which individuals’ psycho-social functioning
is threatened less.
Fig. 4 Latent Change Model (Hypothesis 3)

Current Psychology
1 3
Second, the current findings uniquely relied on self-
reported data, which can be subject to social desirability,
response biases, and demand effects. As most of the targeted
constructs (i.e., need satisfaction, need frustration, well-
being and ill-being) are by definition subjective constructs,
subjective appraisals are the standard to target these con-
structs. However, further research should do well by includ-
ing other sources of data, such as partner ratings of need
satisfaction and need crafting or physiological indicators of
distress, such as blood pressure and cortisol levels.
A third shortcoming of the study is the absence of long
term follow-up assessments. Although the data showed
promising trends with participants’ improvements in need
crafting and need-based experiences immediately after the
program being maintained one month after the end of the
program, it remains unknown whether the online program
could produce long-term changes in participants’ need-based
functioning. Follow-up assessments of at least six months
are necessary to ensure that the adaptive effects of the train-
ing do not fade out over time. For such effects to occur, it
will probably be necessary to repeat parts of the program or
to organize booster sessions at regular moments.
A fourth shortcoming is the notable difference in the sam-
ple sizes of both conditions. While the control condition
exists of 473 participants, the experimental condition con-
tains only 252 participants. This difference is primarily due
to the different response rates in the conditions. Although
notable, such a difference can be expected given the higher
time investment and commitment required from partici-
pants in the experimental condition. To balance the level of
investment between the experimental and control condition
and possibly ending up with a similar drop-out rate across
conditions, future research could use an active, instead of a
passive control condition.
Fifth, the LCMs targeting need crafting did not show an
acceptable fit, with especially the SRMR being too high (Hu
& Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005), thereby indicating that the
model did not capture the data well. Therefore, these specific
results need to be interpreted with some caution.
Conclusion
The current study provided initial and promising evidence
for the effectiveness of the LifeCraft program on individu-
als’ need-based functioning and well-being, thereby indi-
cating that it is possible to uplift individuals’ need crafting
skills through online prevention. Moreover, the findings
highlighted that active practicing at home is a pre-requisite
for need-based prevention programs to be effective. This
suggests that a two-component approach in prevention is
preferred, with need-based programs ideally including
both psycho-education to foster participants’ need-oriented
mindset and practical exercises to implement the trained
skills in daily life. However, it is important to note that the
effect sizes of the program were rather small. Nonetheless,
scholars have argued that even small statistical effects can
be important when the programs are little time-consuming,
thereby yielding great cost-effectiveness (Prentice & Miller,
1992). Considered from that viewpoint, it is indeed quite
promising that a brief online program such as LifeCraft, con-
sisting of seven short sessions, yields one-month gains in the
need-based functioning and mental health of participants
who managed to go through the program.
Authors’ Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed
by Daphne van den Bogaard, Nele Laporte and Katrijn Brenning.
The analyses were performed by Nele Laporte. The first draft of the
manuscript was written by Nele Laporte and all authors commented
on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Funding This study was supported by the Research Foundation Flan-
ders (Fund number: 3G047220) and the Special Research Fund (Fund
number: BOF.24Y.2019.0005.01).
Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are
openly available in Open Science Framework at https:// doi. org/ 10.
17605/ OSF. IO/ 7RV8D
Declarations
Ethics Approval Ethical approval for this study was granted by the
organizing university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB; 2020/62).
Consent to Participate & Consent for Publication Participation was vol-
untary and confidentiality was guaranteed. Active informed consent
was obtained from all participants. Specifically, participants gave their
consent to participate in the study and to process and report their data
anonymously.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Acock, A. C. (2008). A gentle introduction to Stata. Stata press.
Alzueta, E., Perrin, P., Baker, F. C., Caffarra, S., Ramos-Usuga, D.,
Yuksel, D., & Arango-Lasprilla, J. C. (2021). How the COVID-19
pandemic has changed our lives: A study of psychological cor-
relates across 59 countries. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(3),
556–570. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp. 23082
Behzadnia, B., & FatahModares, S. (2020). Basic Psychological Need-
Satisfying Activities during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 1115–1139. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ aphw. 12228
Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2008). Dynamics of perceived par-
enting and identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of

Current Psychology
1 3
Adolescence, 31(2), 165–184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. adole
scence. 2007. 04. 003
Blasco-Belled, A., Tejada-Gallardo, C., Torrelles-Nadal, C., & Alsinet,
C. (2020). The costs of the COVID-19 on subjective well-being:
An analysis of the outbreak in Spain. Sustainability, 12(15), 6243.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 56243
Boden, M., Zimmerman, L., Azevedo, K. J., Ruzek, J. I., Gala, S.,
Magid, H. S. A., ... & McLean, C. P. (2021). Addressing the men-
tal health impact of COVID-19 through population health. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 85, 102006https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr.
2021. 102006
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (Vol.
210). John Wiley & Sons.
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S.,
Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact
of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence.
The Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140-
6736(20) 30460-8
Bueno-Notivol, J., Gracia-García, P., Olaya, B., Lasheras, I., López-
Antón, R., & Santabárbara, J. (2021). Prevalence of depression
during the COVID-19 outbreak: A meta-analysis of community-
based studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psy-
chology, 21(1), 100196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijchp. 2020. 07.
007
Calear, A. L., Christensen, H., Mackinnon, A., & Griffiths, K. M.
(2013). Adherence to the MoodGYM program: Outcomes and
predictors for an adolescent school-based population. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 147(1–3), 338–344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jad. 2012. 11. 036
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng,
J. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic
on college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287, 112934.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. psych res. 2020. 112934
Chen, B., Van Assche, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Bey-
ers, W. (2015). Does psychological need satisfaction matter
when environmental or financial safety are at risk? Journal of
Happiness Studies, 16(3), 745–766. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10902- 014- 9532-5
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., van
der Kaap-Deeder, J., ... & Ryan, R. M. (2015b). Basic psycho-
logical need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength
across four cultures.Motivation and Emotion,39(2), 216-
236https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11031- 014- 9450-1
Czeisler, M. É., Lane, R. I., Petrosky, E., Wiley, J. F., Christensen,
A., Njai, R., ... & Rajaratnam, S. M. (2020). Mental health,
substance use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pan-
demic—United States, June 24–30, 2020.Morbidity and Mor-
tality Weekly Report,69(32), 1049. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15585/
mmwr. mm693 2a1
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(4), 227–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/
S1532 7965P LI1104_ 01
De Clercq, L. E., Dieleman, L. M., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens,
B., Prinzie, P., & De Pauw, S. S. (2020). Negative Controlling
Parenting and Child Personality as Modifiers of Psychosocial
Development in Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A 9-Year
Longitudinal Study at the Level of Within-Person Change. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 1–17. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10803- 020- 04761-4
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 71–75.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of
simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation inten-
tions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(1), 186.
Hansen, W. B., Fleming, C. B., & Scheier, L. M. (2019). Self-reported
engagement in a drug prevention program: Individual and class-
room effects on proximal and behavioral outcomes. The Jour-
nal of Primary Prevention, 40(1), 5–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10935- 018- 00532-1
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51990 95401 18
Kawohl, W., & Nordt, C. (2020). COVID-19, unemployment, and sui-
cide. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(5), 389–390. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ S2215- 0366(20) 30141-3
Khan, K. S., Mamun, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Ullah, I. (2020). The
mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across different
cohorts. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11469- 020- 00367-0
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus
domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An
empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
54(3), 757–765. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64494 05400 3022
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. Guilford Publications.
Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attain-
ing personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation inten-
tions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 83(1), 231.
Laporte, N., Brenning, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Waterschoot, J., & Soen-
ens, B. (2022). A preliminary test of a brief training targeting
need crafting: Effects on adolescents’ psychological need-based
experiences and mental health. Unpublished manuscript, Ghent
University.
Laporte, N., Soenens, B., Brenning, K., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2021a).
Adolescents as active managers of their own psychological needs:
The role of psychological need crafting in adolescents’ psychoso-
cial adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 88, 67–83. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. adole scence. 2021. 02. 004
Laporte, N., Soenens, B., Flamant, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Mabbe,
E., & Brenning, K. (2021b). The role of daily need crafting in
daily fluctuations in adolescents' need-based and affective expe-
riences. Motivation and Emotion, 46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11031- 021- 09921-2
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multi-
variate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statis-
tical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
01621 459. 1988. 10478 722
Low, S., Van Ryzin, M. J., Brown, E. C., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K.
P. (2014). Engagement matters: Lessons from assessing classroom
implementation of steps to respect: A bullying prevention pro-
gram over a one-year period. Prevention Science, 15(2), 165–176.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11121- 012- 0359-1
Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M.
(2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: an
experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emo-
tion, 11(2), 391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 2Fa00 22575
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.).
Muthén & Muthén.
Neelam, K., Duddu, V., Anyim, N., Neelam, J., & Lewis, S. (2020).
Pandemics and Pre-existing Mental Illness: A Systematic
Review and Meta-analysis.Brain, Behavior, & Immunity-Health,
100177https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bbih. 2020. 100177
Nguyen, T. M., & Le, G. N. H. (2021). The influence of COVID-19
stress on psychological well-being among Vietnamese adults:

Current Psychology
1 3
The role of self-compassion and gratitude.Traumatology, 27(1),
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ trm00 00295
Pan, K. Y., Kok, A. A., Eikelenboom, M., Horsfall, M., Jörg, F., Lute-
ijn, R. A., ... & Penninx, B. W. (2021). The mental health impact
of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without depres-
sive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders: a longitudinal
study of three Dutch case-control cohorts.The Lancet Psychia-
try,8(2), 121-129https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2215- 0366(20) 30491-0
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impres-
sive. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 160–164. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 00332 909. 112.1. 160
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01466
21677 00100 306
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic
psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness.
Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and
health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being.
Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1467- 6494. 1997. tb003 26.x
Ryan, R. M., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). Reflections
on Self-Determination Theory as an organizing framework for
personality psychology: Interfaces, integrations, issues, and unfin-
ished business. Journal of Personality, 87(1), 115–145. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jopy. 12440
Šakan, D., Žuljević, D., & Rokvić, N. (2020). The Role of Basic Psy-
chological Needs in Well-Being During the COVID-19 Outbreak:
A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Frontiers in Public
Health, 8, 583181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpubh. 2020. 583181
Sanchez, A. L., Cornacchio, D., Poznanski, B., Golik, A. M., Chou, T.,
& Comer, J. S. (2018). The effectiveness of school-based mental
health services for elementary-aged children: A meta-analysis.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychia-
try, 57(3), 153–165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jaac. 2017. 11. 022
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., Ferguson, Y., Gunz, A., Houser-Marko, L.,
Nichols, C. P., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). Persistent pursuit of
need satisfying goals leads to increased happiness: A 6-month
experimental longitudinal study. Motivation and Emotion, 34(1),
39–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11031- 009- 9153-1
Stice, E., Shaw, H., Bohon, C., Marti, C. N., & Rohde, P. (2009). A
meta-analytic review of depression prevention programs for chil-
dren and adolescents: factors that predict magnitude of interven-
tion effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3),
486–503. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 2Fa00 15168
Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Marti, C. N. (2007). A meta-analytic review
of eating disorder prevention programs: Encouraging findings.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 207–231. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. clinp sy.3. 022806. 091447
Tay, L., & Diener, E. D. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being
around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101(2), 354–365. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0023 779
van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Vermote, B., Waterschoot, J., Soenens,
B., Morbée, S., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2021). The role of ego
integrity and despair in older adults’ well-being during the
COVID-19 crisis: The mediating role of need-based experi-
ences. European Journal of Ageing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10433- 021- 00610-0
Van Hiel, A., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Ambitions fulfilled? The
effects of intrinsic and extrinsic goal attainment on older adults’
ego-integrity and death attitudes. The International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, 68(1), 27–51. https:// doi. org/
10. 2190/ 2FAG. 68.1.b
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic Psycho-
logical Need Theory: Trends, critical themes, and future direc-
tions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11031- 019- 09818-1
Vermote, B., Waterschoot, J., Morbée, S., van der Kaap-Deeder, J.,
Schrooyen, C., Soenens, B., ... & Vansteenkiste, M. (2021). Do
Psychological Needs Play a Role in Times of Uncertainty? Asso-
ciations with Well-Being During the COVID-19 Crisis.Journal
of Happiness Studieshttps:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10902- 021- 00398-x
Watson, D., O'Hara, M. W., Simms, L. J., Kotov, R., Chmielewski, M.,
McDade-Montez, E. A., ... & Stuart, S. (2007). Development and
validation of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms
(IDAS).Psychological Assessment,19(3), 253. https:// doi. org/ 10.
17077/ a7rw- 29zx
Weinstein, N., Khabbaz, F., & Legate, N. (2016). Enhancing need
satisfaction to reduce psychological distress in Syrian refugees.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(7), 645–650.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ ccp00 00095
WHO. (2021) Covid-19 weekly epidemiological Update, Updated 7
December 2021. Retrieved from World Health Organization:
Retrieved from: https:// www. who. int/ emerg encies/ disea ses/ novel-
coron avirus- 2019/ situa tion- repor ts
Witteveen, D., & Velthorst, E. (2020). Economic hardship and mental
health complaints during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 117(44), 27277–27284. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1073/ pnas. 20096 09117
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.