Artículos
Social desirability in
the measurement of subjective well-being: A study with Chilean university
students
Deseabilidad
social en la medición del bienestar subjetivo: un estudio con estudiantes
universitarios de Chile
José Sepúlveda jose.sepulveda@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Berta Schnettler berta.schnettler@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Marianela Denegri marianela.denegri@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Ligia Orellana ligia.orellana@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Jocelyne Sepúlveda jocelyne.sepulveda@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Pamela Canales pamela.canales@ufrontera.cl
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Sebastián González
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Carolina Mardones
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Ingrid Reyes
Universidad de La
Frontera, Chile
Social
desirability in the measurement of subjective well-being: A study with Chilean
university students
Interdisciplinaria, vol. 37,
núm. 2, 2020
Centro
Interamericano de Investigaciones Psicológicas y Ciencias Afines
Los autores conservan la titularidad sobre sus
trabajos y ceden a la revista Interdisciplinaria el derecho a la primera
publicación de cada uno de sus artículos.
Recepción: 18 Octubre 2018
Aprobación: 29 Julio 2020
Abstract:
The present study aimed at determining the association between
life satisfaction and subjective happiness while controlling for social
desirability, and to explore whether overall satisfaction with life can be
predicted by satisfaction with life dimensions while controlling for social
desirability. The study had a quantitative, non-experimental cross-sectional
design, with 279 participants from different universities of the Council of
Rectors of Chile recruited through a non-probabilistic sampling method for
convenience. The participants completed an online questionnaire that inquired
about their global and dimensional satisfaction with life, subjective
happiness, social desirability, and sociodemographic variables. The data was
analysed using partial correlations and multiple regression analyses. Bivariate
correlation results indicate weak and direct associations between social desirability
and life satisfaction and subjective happiness, and a strong and direct
association between the latter. According to the results of the partial
correlation analysis, the association between life satisfaction and subjective
happiness is maintained even when social convenience is controlled. The results
of the multiple regression analyses indicate that although social desirability
predicts life satisfaction by itself, when satisfaction with life dimensions is
added to the model, social desirability loses its predictive power. In
conclusion, although social desirability is associated with the two components,
affective and cognitive, of subjective well-being, this association loses
predictive power when other variables are considered in predictive models.
Study limitations include a relatively low reliability score on the social desirability scale, possible bias due to the study's self-report design and sampling method used.
The present study
aimed at determining the association between life satisfaction and subjective
happiness while controlling for social desirability, and to explore whether
overall satisfaction with life can be predicted by satisfaction with life
dimensions while controlling for social desirability. The study had a
quantitative, non-experimental cross-sectional design, with 279 participants
from different universities of the Council of Rectors of Chile recruited
through a non-probabilistic sampling method for convenience. The participants
completed an online questionnaire that inquired about their global and
dimensional satisfaction with life, subjective happiness, social desirability,
and sociodemographic variables. The data was analysed using partial
correlations and multiple regression analyses. Bivariate correlation results
indicate weak and direct associations between social desirability and life
satisfaction and subjective happiness, and a strong and direct association
between the latter. According to the results of the partial correlation
analysis, the association between life satisfaction and subjective happiness is
maintained even when social convenience is controlled. The results of the
multiple regression analyses indicate that although social desirability
predicts life satisfaction by itself, when satisfaction with life dimensions is
added to the model, social desirability loses its predictive power. In
conclusion, although social desirability is associated with the two components,
affective and cognitive, of subjective well-being, this association loses
predictive power when other variables are considered in predictive models.
Study limitations
include a relatively low reliability score on the social desirability scale,
possible bias due to the study's self-report design and sampling method used.
Keywords:
subjective
well-being, satisfaction with life, subjective happiness, social desirability,
university students..
Resumen: El estudio científico del
bienestar subjetivo ha despertado un gran interés en los últimos 15 años, en
parte debido a su asociación con la salud física y psicológica. A pesar del
interés en el concepto, una de las limitaciones más mencionadas en su estudio
es la influencia que la deseabilidad social puede tener en los auto-reportes de
las personas. Más precisamente, los participantes impulsados a presentarse de
una manera más positiva a los ojos del investigador pueden proporcionar
informes de su propio bienestar subjetivo que no sean un buen reflejo de su
comportamiento cotidiano.
Con esto en consideración, el presente estudio tuvo como objetivo determinar la asociación entre la satisfacción con la vida y la felicidad subjetiva mientras se controla la deseabilidad social, y para probar si la satisfacción general con la vida se puede predecir mediante la satisfacción con diferentes dominios de la vida mientras se controla la deseabilidad social.
El estudio siguió un
diseño cuantitativo, no experimental, ex post facto y transversal. La muestra
estuvo compuesta por 279 participantes, estudiantes de las universidades del
Consejo de Rectores de Chile, reclutados mediante muestreo no probabilístico
por conveniencia. Los participantes respondieron un cuestionario en línea que
exploraba variables sociodemográficas, así como: satisfacción con la vida a
través de la Escala de Satisfacción con la Vida (Diener, Emmons, Larsen y
Griffin, 1985), satisfacción con diferentes dominios de la vida a través de la
Escala Multidimensional de Satisfacción con la Vida Estudiantil (Huebner,
1994), felicidad subjetiva a través de la Escala de Felicidad Subjetiva
(Lyubomirsky y Lepper, 1999) y deseabilidad social a través de una versión
abreviada de la Escala de Deseabilidad Social Marlowe-Crowne (Saiz, Alvarado,
de la Barra, Gempp y Pezo, 1993). Los datos se analizaron mediante correlación
parcial y análisis de regresión jerárquica múltiple.
Los resultados
muestran que la deseabilidad social tiene asociaciones débiles y directas con
la felicidad subjetiva y la satisfacción con la vida y que existe una fuerte
asociación directa entre las dos últimas, la cual se mantiene cuando se
controla la deseabilidad social. Con respecto a los resultados del análisis de
regresión múltiple, la deseabilidad social predice la satisfacción general de
la vida global en general cuando se considera por sí misma, pero pierde su
poder predictivo cuando la satisfacción con diferentes dominios en la vida se
incluye en la predicción. Las posibles explicaciones para estos resultados
incluyen la noción de que la deseabilidad social puede minimizarse cuando se
recopilan datos a través de cuestionarios en línea y que estos resultados
pueden ser parte del comportamiento característico de los adolescentes y
estudiantes universitarios. Esto está considerando investigaciones previas que
muestran que las variables que se espera estén asociadas con la deseabilidad
social no se comportan de esta manera en esta población.
Las limitaciones del
estudio incluyen un puntaje de confiabilidad relativamente bajo en la escala de
deseabilidad social, posible sesgo debido al diseño de auto reporte del
estudio, y al método de muestreo por conveniencia que puede haber derivado en
una muestra homogénea lo que dificulta la generalización de los resultados. Por
lo tanto, se sugiere que futuras investigaciones incluyan un espectro más
amplio de programas universitarios para extrapolar los resultados y
conclusiones actuales a estudiantes universitarios de diversas áreas de
conocimiento, considerando la inclusión de otras variables que pueden ser
relevantes para la predicción del bienestar subjetivo, tales como edad y nivel
socioeconómico (Kulaksızoğlu y Topuz, 2014), apoyo familiar (Schnettler et al.,
2015b ), y apoyo a la autonomía de familiares, amigos y pareja romántica
(Ratelle, Simard y Guay, 2013).
Palabras clave: bienestar subjetivo, satisfacción con la vida, felicidad
subjetiva, deseabilidad social, estudiantes universitarios..
Introduction
The scientific study of subjective well-being has raised great
interest in the last 15 years partly due to its association with physical and
psychological health. In this regard, there are studies that show a positive
association between subjective well-being with longevity and various health
outcomes (Diener, Pressman, Hunter, &
Delgadillo-Chase, 2017). In this topic, a recent meta-analysis conducted on
29 studies found a medium-sized positive association between health status and
subjective-wellbeing (Ngamaba, Panagioti,
& Armitage, 2017). Similarly, other studies have reviewed the
literature demonstrating that subjective well-being is associated with greater
health and prolonged life (Hernández, et
al., 2018). In detail, Hernández et
al., (2018) summarize evidence in the scientific literature linking
psychological well-being (including positive affect, optimism, life meaning and
purpose, and life satisfaction) and physical health in the form of mortality,
chronic disease incidence and progression. Furthermore, evidence in the
literature show an association between subjective well-being and self-reports
of mental health (e.g. Dobewall, Tark,
& Aavik, 2018).
Subjective well-being reflects an overall evaluation of the
quality of a person’s life from her or his own perspective (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2018). It
included both a cognitive component, such as life satisfaction, and an
affective component regarding the emotional responses to ongoing life events (Diener, Oishi, & Tay, 2018). In that
distinction, the cognitive component refers to the cognitive evaluation,
positive or negative, that individuals make about their own life, globally or
by specific domains and is usually referred to as satisfaction with life. On
the other hand, the affective component includes the presence of positive
affect and the relative absence of unpleasant emotional states, both momentary
and long-term (Diener, et al., 2017),
which is usually linked to subjective happiness. Both components have been
studied in different stages of life, with a particular interest in groups that
may be particularly vulnerable to developmental and environmental demands.
Two of these groups of special interest in the research of
subjective well-being are adolescents and young adults, partly because of the
stressful life events that are characteristic of these life stages, but also
due to the presence of risk behaviours that may become potential hurdles to
achieve higher levels of subjective well-being. Inspired by these and other
challenges that are inherent to adolescence, Huebner (1994) developed the
Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS) to provide a profile
of the young population in five dimensions: family, school, friends, self and
neighbourhood. Nowadays, the scale is used widely in research of populations of
adolescents and university students and has been adapted to the Chilean context
in the later population (Schnettler, et
al., 2017).
One of the most frequently mentioned limitations when studying
subjective well-being is the influence of social desirability. Milhabet, Le Barbenchon, Cambon, and Molina
(2015) define social desirability as the types of affects that individuals
elicit from others, or the manners in which individuals satisfy other people’s
principal motivations. Under this definition, social desirability conveys the
“likeableness” that individuals attribute to others in their relationships.
Social desirability would pose a limitation to the measurement of subjective
well-being inasmuch as participants may exaggerate or fake their responses in
an attempt to impress the researchers (Fastame,
Hitchcott, & Penna, 2017). In this regard, studies have found a weak
but significant association between social desirability and satisfaction with
life a study with university students (Miller,
Zivnuska, and Kacmar, 2019), and young adults (Caputo, 2017).
Considering the influence that social desirability may have on
reports of subjective well-being in adolescents and young adults, the present
study aimed to determine the association between satisfaction with life and
subjective happiness while controlling for social desirability and to test if
general life satisfaction can be predicted by satisfaction with different life
domains while controlling for social desirability.
Method
The study followed a quantitative design, non-experimental, ex post facto,
and cross-sectional study (Hernández,
Fernández, & Baptista 2010). Participants were asked via email to answer
an online questionnaire. The online questionnaire included informed consent
form mentioning general aims of the study, as well as its ethical guidelines
including their right to refrain from participating and stop their
participation at any point, and the anonymity and confidentiality in the
treatment of their answers.
Participants
Sample is comprised of 279 university students from various
Chilean universities, specifically: 58 students from the Universidad de
Tarapacá (20.8 %), 39 students from the Universidad de Chile (14.0 %), 59
students from the Universidad de Talca (21.1 %), 103 students from the
Universidad de La Frontera (36.9 %), and 20 students from the Universidad de
Magallanes (7.2 %). Participants’ age ranged between 18 and 39 years old (M =
22; SD = 2.8). Regarding gender distribution, there were 103 male participants
(36.9 %) and 176 female participants (63.1 %).
The study used a non-probabilistic sampling method by
convenience, recruiting students from different university programs that were
accessible to the research team via academic collaborators. Regarding
distribution by program of studies: 92 participants were enrolled in Commercial
Engineering (33.0 %), 86 in Psychology (30.8 %), 61 in Agronomy (21.9 %), 16 in
Public and Audit Accountant (5.7 %), 15 in Biotechnology (5.4 %), and 9 in
Veterinary Medicine (3.2 %). With respect to distribution of participants by
the socioeconomic level: 37 students came from a high socioeconomic level (13.3
%), 81 from a high to medium level (29.0 %), 85 from a medium level (30.5 %),
57 from a medium to low level (20.4 %), and 19 from a low socioeconomic level
(6.8 %).
Instrument
Means, standard deviations and reliability of the measures can
be found in Table 1. The questionnaire included the
following measures.
Table 1
M |
SD |
Reliability |
|
Satisfaction with Life Scale |
21.2 |
5.2 |
.88 |
Subjective Happiness Scale |
5.2 |
1.2 |
.80 |
MSLSS: Family |
4.6 |
1.0 |
.88 |
MSLSS: Friends |
5.2 |
.6 |
.90 |
MSLSS: Neighborhood |
4.0 |
1.3 |
.85 |
MSLSS: University |
4.5 |
.8 |
.86 |
MSLSS: Self |
4.7 |
.8 |
.85 |
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale |
6.2 |
2.0 |
.67 |
The Socioeconomic Level was measured as proposed in Adimark (2000), with the Socioeconomic
Level Scale (ESOMAR). This measure combines the highest educational level
achieved by the person with the highest income in the family group (e.g. high
school diploma, bachelor’s degree) with the type of job this person does (e.g.
occasional zero-hour contract jobs, mid-level administrative job). Participants
are then classified into one of five possible socioeconomic levels: high, high
to medium, medium, medium to low, and low socioeconomic level.
Satisfaction with Life Scale, or SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985),
which contains five items that evaluate global cognitive judgements that
individuals make about their own life, using a Likert format. Schnettler et al. (2017) reported
adequate reliability indexes for Chilean university population (. = .88).
Reliability index for the present study was of .88.
The Subjective Happiness Scale, developed by Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999), consists
of a general measure of subjective happiness comprised by four items in Likert
format. Two of the items ask the participants to characterize themselves, while
the other two present brief descriptions and ask participants to what extent
these descriptions apply to them. Schnettler
et al. (2015a) reported adequate reliability indexes for Chilean university
students (. = .88). Reliability index for the present study was of .80.
The Multidimensional Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale, or
MSLSS, developed by Huebner (1994),
and revised by Huebner, Laughlin, Ash and
Gilman (1998), aims to provide a multidimensional profile of students’ life
satisfaction in five different domains: Family, Studies, Friends,
Neighbourhood, and Self. The instruments consider 40 items, some of them
reverse-coded, on Likert format. González
(2014) reported adequate reliability indexes for the overall scale (α =
.90), and by domains: Family (α = .89), Friends (α = .86), Neighbourhood (α =
.84), Educational Organization (α = .79), and Self (α = .86). Reliability
indices for the present study ranged from .85 to .90.
Social desirability was measured with a brief version of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The brief version was developed by Saiz, Alvarado, de la Barra, Gempp, and Pezo
(1993), and comprises ten items from the original scale in which
participants evaluate if each of the statements reflects or not their own
behaviour on a true or false (dichotomous) scale, with an acceptable
reliability index of .70. High scores in the scale reflect high levels of
social desirability and this brief version showed an acceptable reliability
index of .60 (Mladinic, Saiz, Díaz,
Ortega, & Oyarce, 1998). Reliability index in the present study was of
.67, obtained through the ordinal alpha coefficient proposed by Zumbo, Gadermann, and Zeisser (2007) as a
better estimator of reliability in binary data. The calculation of this
coefficient was done following the guidelines and method proposed by Domínguez-Lara (2012, 2018).
Procedure
Data was collected through an online questionnaire on the
QuestionPro service. Participants were invited via email to take part in the
study by an academic of their respective university (a collaborator of the
research team). Participants who agreed to take part in the study then received
an email from the research team with a copy of the informed consent form and
the link to answer the online questionnaire. The informed consent form explained
in general terms the aims of the study and its ethical guidelines. Emphasis was
made on the voluntary nature of the study, confidentiality of the data,
anonymity of the participants, the expected absence of physical and
psychological harm, and their right to stop taking part in the study at any
point. Participants could opt to receive an incentive of $5,000 Chilean pesos
($8 U.S. Dollars, approximately) and they could opt to participate in a prize
draw of two gift cards per university for the value of $100,000 Chilean pesos
each ($160 U.S. Dollars approximately). Participants completed the online
questionnaire in their own free time without supervision or knowledge of the
academic who initially invited them. Data was collected over a three months’
period.
Analysis plan
The study included reliability analysis for the measures used
followed by Runs Tests on the main variables of interest, partial correlations
(p < .05) and multiple hierarchical regressions (p < .05). The multiple
hierarchical regressions considered satisfaction with life as predicted
variable, social desirability was entered in the first step of the analysis and
the five domains of the MSLSS were entered as predictor variables in the second
step. All analysis were done using the IBM SPSS Statistics v. 20 software.
Results
Prior conducting the main analyses of the study a Runs Test for
detecting non-randomness was performed on the median of the main variables of
interest, in the order data was collected. Results of these analyses show
non-significant results for subjective happiness (Z = -.42, p = .68), social
desirability (Z = -.15, p = .88), and for each of the dimensions of the MSLSS:
satisfaction with family (Z = -1.59, p = .11), university (Z = -.17, p = .87),
friends (Z = -.18, p = .86), neighbourhood (Z = -.87, p = .38), and with self
(Z = -.60, p = .55). Conversely, results for satisfaction with life scale show
a significant result (Z = -2.98, p ≤ .01), suggesting that participants’
responses for this variable are not randomly distributed above and below its
median based on lower-than-expected number of runs obtained in this variable (R
= 115).
The first specific aim was addressed through partial correlation
analyses between satisfaction with life and subjective happiness while
controlling by social desirability. Results of the zero-order correlations
showed positive weak associations of social desirability with satisfaction with
life (r(277) = .18, p < .001), and with subjective happiness (r(277) = .25,
p < .001), and a strong positive association between satisfaction with life
and subjective happiness (r(277) = .64, p < .001). In a similar manner,
results of the partial correlation showed that the association between
satisfaction with life and subjective happiness remains similar when controlling
for social desirability (r(276) = .63; p < .001). Results of the zero-order
correlations and partial correlation can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
a Cells contain
zero-order (Pearson) correlations.*** p < .001
To address the second specific aim of the study, a multiple
hierarchical regression was carried out with overall satisfaction with life as
the predicted variable. In the first step of the analysis, social desirability
was entered as a co-variable and in the second step of the analysis; the
dimensions of the MSLSS were entered as the main predictors (i.e. satisfaction
with family, university, friends, neighbourhood, and self). Results showed that
the models on both steps were significant; Model 1 [F(1, 277) = 9.181, p <
.01, R2 = .03, R2Adjusted = .03], and Model 2
[F(6, 272) = 26.633, p < .001, R2 = .37, R2Adjusted=
.36]. However, when looking at significant F changes, Model 2 resulted
significant [F(5, 272) = 29.181, p < .001] which indicates that variables
entered in the second step produce a significant increment in explanatory
power. In Model 2, the variables that significantly predicted satisfaction with
life were satisfaction with family [β = .22, t(272) = 3.93, p < .001],
university, [β = .13, t(272) = 2.32, p < .05] neighbourhood [β = .22, t(272)
= 4.04, p < .001], self [β = .25, t(272) = 4.18, p < .001]. Results of
the multiple regression analysis can be found in Table 3.
Table 3
Model |
Variables |
β |
t |
p |
F |
df |
p |
R2Adjusted |
1 |
Overall model |
9.181 |
277 |
.003 |
.029 |
|||
Social Desirability |
.18 |
3.03 |
.00 |
|||||
2 |
Overall model |
26.633 |
272 |
.000 |
.356 |
|||
Social Desirability |
.02 |
.48 |
.63 |
|||||
MSLSS: Family |
.05 |
.92 |
.36 |
|||||
MSLSS: Friends |
.22 |
3.93 |
.00 |
|||||
MSLSS: Neighborhood |
.13 |
2.32 |
.02 |
|||||
MSLSS: University |
.21 |
4.04 |
.00 |
|||||
MSLSS: Self |
.25 |
4.18 |
.00 |
Based on the results of the multiple regression analysis it can
be concluded that when considered by itself, social desirability successfully
predicts satisfaction with life, but when is considered along with satisfaction
in different life domains, social desirability loses its predictive power while
satisfaction with family, university, neighbourhood, and self, emerge as
predictors of general life satisfaction.
Discussion
Considering results of the study, it is concluded that
satisfaction with life and subjective happiness are associated while
controlling for social desirability, thus supporting the first hypothesis of
the study. More precisely, results of the zero-order correlations suggest weak
positive associations between social desirability with satisfaction with life
and with subjective happiness, but results of the partial correlation analysis
show a significant strong positive association between satisfaction with life
and subjective happiness after controlling for social desirability.
Regarding results of the zero-order correlations showing an
association between social desirability and subjective well-being, these
results suggests that participants’ tendency to present themselves in a more
positive way to earn others’ approval may have led them to report high indices
of subjective well-being, thus undermining honesty and/or accuracy of their
responses. These results go in line with hat has been proposed in the literature
(Caputo, 2017). Conversely, results of
the partial correlation analysis show that the association between satisfaction
with life and subjective happiness is significant even when controlling for
social desirability, suggesting a low shared variance between social desirability
with satisfaction with life and subjective well-being. In conclusion, despite
social desirability being associated with subjective well-being measures, low
shared variances with them translate into participants tending to present
themselves in an authentic way, with no need to show a more positive image of
them than it really is when assessing their subjective well-being (Moral de la Rubia, García, & Antona, 2012).
Regarding results of the second aim of the study, a multiple
regression analysis showed that social desirability predicts overall life
satisfaction when considered on its own, but when including the satisfaction
with different dimensions of life as predictors, social desirability loses its predictive
power. These findings point out at the satisfaction with family, university,
neighbourhood, and self, as predictors of overall satisfaction with life. This
coincides with Diener’s (1994) approach
that domains closer to the personal life of individuals are the ones that
influence their subjective well-being the most.
A possible explanation for social desirability losing its
predictive power over life satisfaction comes from the notion that social
desirability may be minimized when data is collected through an online
questionnaire, without the physical presence of an interviewer, which may
result in the participants feeling less compelled to present themselves in a
more positive way. This explanation is supported by Caputo (2017) who suggests that the
measurement of well-being through online surveys may be affected by
self-deception, i.e.
the unintentional propensity to portray oneself in a favourable
light, rather than by intentional falsification (which is mostly assesses by
traditional social desirability scales, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Scale).
Furthermore, these results are also supported by the literature showing that
online questionnaires prompt participants to have higher levels of revealed
information (e.g. Weisband & Kiesler,
1996), a better disposition to answer questions regarding sensitive
information (e.g. Tourangeau & Smith,
1996), and lower levels of social anxiety and social desirability (e.g. Frick, Bachtiger, & Reips, 2001).
Another possible explanation for the findings regarding social
desirability not affecting self-report measures of subjective well-being, is
that having self-evaluations of subjective well-being that are unaffected by
social desirability may be a characteristic behaviour of university students.
This explanation comes from research done with university students where
results report null associations between social desirability with variables
that are –arguably- expected to be associated with it such as alcohol
consumption (Kypri et al., 2016)
academic dishonesty (e.g. Ferrari, 2005),
self-complexity (e.g. Luo, Watkins &
Lam, 2009) and athletic identity (e.g. Nasco
& Webb, 2006). Considering this, it may be that university students’
assessments of their subjective well-being is not affected by social
desirability when considered along with other variables.
Regarding limitations of the study, the relatively low
reliability score obtained in the social desirability scale emerges as the main
limitation. Considering the consensus establishing 0.7 as the cut-off point for
reliable scales (Kline, 1999), a revision
of the scale used to measure social desirability is suggested by assessing its
reliability and validity, and comparing it with similar measures such as the
Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire or the social desirability
scale SDS-17. Testing this scale will allow to conclude whether the measurement
used is the optimal for these types of studies.
Another limitation of this study comes from the use of
self-report measures as a source of information, which may lead to biased
answers. In this matter, it is possible that information reported by
participants were subject to selective memory bias, attribution bias, and/or
exaggeration. It is recommended that future studies consider external sources
of information (e.g. peer evaluation) or alternative methodologies (e.g. diary
or longitudinal studies), to contrast the participants’ responses to subjective
measures of well-being.
A third limitation of this study is the sampling method used,
through which only a few university programs were selected, thus limiting the
generalization of the results to other university student populations. Despite
attempts to include students from a wider range of programs, the final sample
resulted relatively homogenous, which may translate into experiences that are not
representative from the general population of university students. In this
regard, variables such as stress levels, uncertainty, and/or exigency may
differ between programs, which in turn may affect the levels of satisfaction
with the university domain enough to make the overall satisfaction with life
fluctuate. Considering this limitation, it is suggested that future studies
include a wider spectrum of university programs to extrapolate the present
results and conclusions to university students of diverse areas of knowledge.
Regarding suggestions for future studies, it is suggested the
inclusion of other variables that may be relevant to the prediction of
subjective well-being, such as age and socioeconomic level (Kulaksızoğlu & Topuz, 2014), family
support (Schnettler et al., 2015b),
and autonomy support from family, friends and romantic partner (Ratelle, Simard & Guay, 2013).
Another suggestion for future studies regards the comparison of the effects of
social desirability on subjective well-being in different forms of
administration, i.e. face to face and online surveys. This would help shed
light on the possible differential effects of social desirability, and the
possible benefits of one way of administration over the other in the
amelioration of social desirability effects. Even if the prediction of
subjective well-being was not the main aim of the present study, the inclusion
of such variables may aid in the generalisability of the results and
conclusions to real-life scenarios.
Conclusions
The present study explored the association between social
desirability and subjective well-being. Overall, results indicate weak and
positive associations between desirability is associated with the affective and
cognitive dimensions of subjective well-being, subjective happiness and
satisfaction with life respectively, but partial correlation analyses indicate
that social desirability does not affect the association between the two.
Similarly, social desirability predicts overall life satisfaction when
considered by itself, but social desirability loses its predictive power when
the satisfaction with life’s domains are included in the prediction. With these
results in consideration it is concluded that despite social desirability being
associated with subjective well-being in university students, when other
variables are taken into consideration, social desirability loses its
predictive power over subjective well-being. The notion that students’
evaluations of their own well-being are not influenced by social desirability,
may be helpful in the measurement of subjective well-being in future research.
References
Adimark. (2000). El nivel socioeconómico
ESOMAR. Manual de aplicación. Santiago: Adimark.
Caputo, A. (2017). Social
desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online
survey. Universitas
Psychologica, 16(2), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
Diener, E. (1994). El
bienestar subjetivo. Psychosocial Intervention, .(8), 67-113. Retrieved from http://www.psychosocial-intervention.org/&numero=51994381
Diener, E., Emmons, R.,
Larsen, R. & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E.
& Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and Open Questions in the Science of
Subjective Well-Being. Collabra:
Psychology, 4(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115
Diener, E., Oishi, S. &
Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4),
253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
Diener, E., Pressman, S.,
Hunter, J. & Delgadillo-Chase, D. (2017). If, why, and when subjective
well-being influences health, and future needed research. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 9(2),
133-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12090
Dobewall, H., Tark, R.
& Aavik, T. (2018). Health as a value and its association with
health-related quality of life, mental health, physical health, and subjective
well-being. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 13(4), 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9563-2
Domínguez-Lara, S. (2012).
Propuesta para el cálculo del Alfa Ordinal y Theta de Armor. Revista de Investigación
en Psicología, 15(1), 213. https://doi.org/10.15381/rinvp.v15i1.3684
Domínguez-Lara, S. (2018).
Fiabilidad y alfa ordinal. Actas Urológicas Españolas, 42(2), 140-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.002
Fastame, M. C., Hitchcott,
P. K. & Penna, M. P. (2017). Does social desirability influence
psychological well-being: perceived physical health and religiosity of Italian
elders? A developmental approach. Aging & Mental Health, 21(4), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1074162
Ferrari, J. R. (2005).
Impostor tendencies and academic dishonesty: Do they cheat their way to
success? Social
Behavior and Personality, 33(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.11
Frick, A., Bachtiger, M. T.
& Reips U. D. (2001). Financial incentives, personal information and
drop-out in online studies. In U.D. Reaps & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet
Science (pp. 209-219). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-19758
González, N. (2014). Propiedades psicométricas
de la Escala Multidimensional de Satisfacción con la Vida en Estudiantes
Universitarios (Unpublished master's thesis). Universidad de La
Frontera, Temuco, Chile.
Hernández, R., Bassett, S.
M., Boughton, S. W., Schuette, S. A., Shiu, E. W. & Moskowitz, J. T.
(2018). Psychological Well-Being and Physical Health: Associations, Mechanisms,
and Future Directions. Emotion
Review, 10(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917697824
Hernández, R., Fernández,
C. & Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la investigación. México DF: Mc Graw-Hill.
Huebner, E. (1994).
Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction
scale for children. Psychological
Assessment, 6(2), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.149
Huebner, E., Laughlin, J.,
Ash, C. & Gilman, R. (1998). Further validation of the multidimensional
Students Life Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(2), 118-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299801600202
Kline, P. (1999). A Handbook of
Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Kulaksızoğlu, A. &
Topuz, C. (2014). Subjective well-being levels of university students. Journal of Educational and
Instructional Studies in the World, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.wjeis.org/FileUpload/ds217232/File/06.kulaksizoglu.pdf
Kypri, K., Wilson, A.,
Attia, J., Sheeran, P., Miller, P. & McCambridge, J. (2016). Social
Desirability Bias in the Reporting of Alcohol Consumption: A Randomized Trial. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol and Drugs, 77(3), 526–531. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.526
Luo, W., Watkins, D. &
Lam, R. Y. H. (2009). Validating a new measure of self-complexity. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 91(4), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902936223
Lyubomirsky, S. &
Lepper, H.S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability
and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041
Milhabet, I., Le
Barbenchon, E., Cambon, L, & Molina, G. (2015). Comparative pessimism or
optimism: Depressed mood, risk-taking, social utility and desirability. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 18(2015), E10. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.9
Miller, B. K., Zivnuska, S.
& Kacmar, K. M. (2019). Self-perception and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 139(September 2018), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.003
Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L.,
Díaz, M., Ortega, A. & Oyarce, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente en
estudiantes universitarios chilenos: Teoría, medición y diferencias de género. Revista de Psicología
Social y Personalidad, 14(1), 1-14.
Moral de la Rubia, J.,
García, C. & Antona, C. (2012). Traducción y validación del inventario de
deseabilidad social al responder en una muestra probabilística de estudiantes
universitarios mexicanos. Revista de Psicología GEPU, 3(2), 54-72. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4392271
Nasco, S. A. & Webb, W.
M. (2006). Toward an expanded measure of athletic identity: The inclusion of
public and private dimensions. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28(4), 434-453. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.28.4.434
Ngamaba, K. H., Panagioti,
M. & Armitage, C. J. (2017). How strongly related are health status and
subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Public
Health, 27(5), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx081
Ratelle, C.F., Simard, K.
& Guay, F. (2013). University students’ subjective well-being: The role of
autonomy support from parents, friends, and the romantic partner. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 14(3), 893-910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9360-4
Saiz, J., Alvarado, E., De
la Barra, C., Gempp, R. & Pezo, S. (1993). Validez de tres versiones abreviadas de la
Escala de Deseabilidad Social de Marlowe-Crowne. Manuscrito no
publicado. Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco,
Chile.
Schnettler, B., Denegri,
M., Miranda, H., Sepúlveda, J., Orellana, L., Paiva, G. & Grunert, K. G.
(2015b). Family support and subjective well-being: an exploratory study of
university students in southern Chile. Social Indicators Research, 122(3),
833-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0718-3
Schnettler, B., Orellana,
L., Lobos, G., Miranda, H., Sepúlveda, J., Etchebarne, S. & Grunert, K. G.
(2015a). Relationship between the domains of the Multidimensional Students’
Life Satisfaction Scale, satisfaction with food-related life and happiness in
university students. Nutrición
Hospitalaria, 31(6), 2752–2763. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2015.31.6.8593
Schnettler, B., Orellana,
L., Sepúlveda, J., Miranda, H., Grunert, K., Lobos, G. & Hueche, C. (2017).
Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale in a sample of Chilean university students. Suma Psicológica, 24(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sumpsi.2017.06.001
Tourangeau, R. & Smith,
T. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode,
question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2),
275– 304. https://doi.org/10.1086/297751
Weisband, S. & Kiesler,
S. (1996). Self-disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/238386.238387
Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A.
M. & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta
for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992180
HTML generado a partir de XML-JATS4R por
Refbacks
- No hay Refbacks actualmente.
Comentarios sobre este artículo
"nghvmiegp" (2021-10-05)
"vfeugx" (2021-10-05)
"mfqsdwyeq" (2021-10-06)
"ngtlufa" (2021-10-06)
"johnansaz" (2022-04-10)
"johnansaz" (2022-04-18)
"yaqfctu" (2022-05-14)
"reimprc" (2022-07-16)