Both PSD dimensions explain variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, with designing competition contributing most to engagement¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Designing fun and designing competition each predicted study engagement and subjective well-being over and above personal resources. → Costantini 2025
Evidence¶
Costantini 2025¶
Costantini, A., Bakker, A. B., & Scharp, Y. S. (2025). Playful Study Design: A Novel Approach to Enhancing Student Well-Being and Academic Performance. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10022-6
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Hierarchical regressions on the full Study 1 sample (N = 753) tested incremental validity for well-being outcomes. The article reports "both PSD dimensions explained significant variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond CSE and PsyCap," with competition the strongest engagement predictor.
"both PSD dimensions explained significant variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond CSE and PsyCap, with designing competition contributing the most to study engagement, supporting Hypotheses 5a and 5b."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Designing fun explains additional variance in peer interactions and popularity beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, whereas designing competition does not — related
- PSD dimensions correlate with trait curiosity, and playfulness correlates with designing fun but not designing competition, supporting the scale's convergent and discriminant validity — related
- A quasi-experimental PSD training intervention increased students' use of fun and competition when studying, with greater active learning, study task proactivity and absorption over time — related
- Playful study design is measured as a two-dimensional construct of designing fun and designing competition, supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses — related
- Locus of control is negatively correlated with and predicts subjective well-being, ranking second after self-esteem — related
- Exam grades correlate positively with designing competition and near-zero with designing fun in the Study 1 correlation table — related
- Playful study design fosters engagement, flow, and goal attainment, with strongest effects for students high in proactive personality — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
psd-engagement-wellbeing-incremental |
title |
Both PSD dimensions explain variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, with designing competition contributing most to engagement |
description |
Both PSD dimensions explain variance in study engagement and subjective well-being beyond core self-evaluations and PsyCap, with designing competition contributing most to engagement |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — costantini-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.