Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey
HTML Full Text
PDF
XML

Keywords

social desirability bias
psychological well-being
web-based survey
happiness
gratitude

How to Cite

Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey. (2017). Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar

Abstract

Social desirability seems to enhance well-being measures because individuals tend to increase the degree of their satisfaction and happiness resulting in response artifacts and in a serious threat to the validity of self-reported data. This paper explores social desirability bias in self-reported subjective well-being, controlling for several socio-demographic variables such as gender, age, education, marital/relationship status and employment status. This is in order to test whether social desirability has incremental validity in predicting some well-being measures. Three different facets of well-being are proposed which deal with subjective happiness, general life satisfaction, and gratitude and loneliness, respectively regarded as a positive and negative emotional response. Through a web-based survey a convenience sample of 170 participants completed an online questionnaire including measures of social desirability, subjective happiness, life satisfaction, gratitude and loneliness. Correlation analyses and two-step hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. All well-being measures show modest significant correlations with social desirability ranging from .235 to .309, except subjective happiness. Social desirability accounted for from about 3% to 6% of the variance of these measures, after controlling for socio-demographic variables. Social desirability seems thus to play little role in well-being self-report measures, as revealed by previous studies. Some limitations are discussed, as well as issues about social desirability bias in online investigation.

HTML Full Text
PDF
XML

Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard to involve Internet Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1602_04

Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335-344.

Ben-Zur, H. (2012). Loneliness, optimism, and well-being among married, divorced and widowed individuals. The Journal of Psychology, 146, 23-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.548414

Bono, G., Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2004) . Gratitude in practice and the practice of gratitude . In P. A. Linley and S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 464-481). New York: Wiley.

Brajša-Žganec, A., & Kaliterna Lipovčan, L. (2006). Kvaliteta življenja, životno zadovoljstvo i sreća osoba koje profesionalno pomažu drugima [Quality of life, life satisfaction and happiness in professional caregivers]. Društvena istraživanja, 4-5(84-85), 713-728.

Brajsa-Zganec, A., Ivanovic, D., & Lipovcan, L. K. (2011). Personality Traits and Social Desirability as Predictors of Subjective Well-being. Psychological Topics, 20(2), 261-276. Retrieved from http://pt.ffri.hr/index.php/pt/article/view/2/2

Burris, C. T., & Jackson, L. M. (1999). Hate the sin/love the sinner, or love the hater? Intrinsic religion and responses to partner abuse. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 160-174.

Caputo, A. (2015). The Relationship Between Gratitude and Loneliness: The Potential Benefits of Gratitude for Promoting Social Bonds. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i2.826

Chen, P. Y., Dai, T., Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Relation between negative affectivity and positive affectivity: effects of judged desirability of scale items and respondents’ social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(1), 183-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6901_10

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1984). Personality as a life-long determinant of wellbeing. In C. Z. Malatesta & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Emotion in adult development (pp. 141-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new Scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047358

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are these neurons of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national indeks. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34

Diener, E. (2009). Assessing Well-Being: The. Collected Works of Ed Diener. Dordrecht: Springer.

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57, 119-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014411319119

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Gallagher, D. (1991). Response artefacts in the measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 35-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00292649

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 25-41.

Duncan, E., & Grazzani-Gavazzi, I. (2004). Positive Emotional Experiences in Scottish and Italian young Adults: A Diary Study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 359-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-0666-8

Dwight, S. A., & Feigelson, M. E. (2000). A quantitative review of the effect of computerized testing on the measurement of social desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 340-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970583

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C. A. (2000) . Gratitude as a human strength: Appraising the evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.56

Evans, J. & Mathur, A., (2005). The Value of On-line Surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195-219. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/10662240510590360

Eysenck, M. (1990). Happiness: Facts and myths. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fastame, C., & Penna, M. P. (2013). Does Social Desirability Confound the Assessment of Self Reported Measures of Well-Being and Metacognitive Efficiency in Young and Older Adults? Clinical Gerontologist, 36(2), 95-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2012.749319

Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), 79-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15

Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support and emotional intelligence as predictors of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1551-1561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.011

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

Holden, R. R., Starzyk, K. B., Mcleod, L. D., & Edwards, M. J. (2000). Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR). Assessment, 7, 163-175.

Holder, M. D. (2012). Happiness in children: measurement, correlates and enhancement of positive subjective well-being. Dordrecht: Springer.

Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930

Howell, R. T., Rodzon, K. S., Kurai, M., & Sanchez, A. H. (2010). A validation of well-being and happiness surveys for administration via the Internet. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 775-784. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.775

Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26, 655-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

Inglehart, R. (2002). Gender, aging, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3-5), 391-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002071520204300309

Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy and happiness. In E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165-183). Cambridge, Massachusets: The MIT Press.

Kaliterna-Lipovčan, L., & Prizmić-Larsen, Z. (2006). Quality of life, life satisfaction and happiness in Croatia in comparison to European countries. In K. Ott (Ed.), Croatian accession to the European Union. The challenges of participation (pp. 189-208). Zagreb: Institute of Public Finances, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Karademas, E. (2007). Positive and negative aspects of well-being: Common and specific predictors. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 277–287.

Konow, J., & Earley, J. (2008). The Hedonistic Paradox: Is Homo Economicus Happier? Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.006

Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549-566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.593

Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1988). Social desirability in measures of subjective wellbeing: Age comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 20, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00384215

Kuncel, N. R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x

Lasgaard, M., Goossens, L., & Elklit, A. (2011). Loneliness, depressive symptomatology, and suicide ideation in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 137-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9442-x

Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: more desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.310

Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and selfdeception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 131-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00339.x

Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 8-13. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501002.x

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005) . Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Maino, E., & Aceti, G. (1997). Contributo all’adattamento italiano della Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale [Contribution to the Italian adaptation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale]. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 4(2), 81-93.

Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Canova, L., & Marcorin, R. (2000). La desiderabilità sociale: Un’analisi di forme brevi della scala di Marlowe e Crowne [Social desirability: An analysis of short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale]. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 7(1), 5-17.

McCrae, R. R. (1986). Well being scales do not measure social desirability. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 390-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronj/41.3.390

McCrae, R. R. (2002). The maturation of personality psychology: Adult personality development and psychological well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 307-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00011-9

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882

McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112

Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56-67. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56

Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.

Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2004). The subjective evaluation of well-being in adulthood: Findings and implications. Aging International, 29(2), 113-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12126-004-1013-4

Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandrik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(19), 149-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_17

Peck, R., Olsen, C., & Devore, J. (2011). Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis (4th edition). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.

Penezić, Z., & Ivanov, L. (1999). Predikcija zadovoljstva životom kod tri različite dobne skupine [Prediction of life satisfaction in three different age groups]. Psychological Topics, 8-9, 47-61.

Piccinelli, M., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Gender differences in depression: Critical review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 486-492. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1192/bjp.177.6.486

Powling, M., & Hopes, W. (1988). Loneliness, self-characterization and acquaintance in student groups. Australian Psychologist, 23(1), 45-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00050068808255595

Presser, S., & Stinson, L. (1998). Data collection mode and social desirability bias in selfreported religious attendance. American Sociological Review, 6(3),137-145.

Randall, D., & Fernandes, M. E. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805-817.

Richman, W. L., Weisband, S., Kiesler, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.754

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Sigmon, S. T., Pells, J. J., Boulard, N. E., Whitcomb-Smith, S., Edenfield, T. M., Hermann, B. A., … Kubik, E. (2005). Gender differences in self-reports of depression: The response bias hypothesis revisited. Sex Roles, 53, 401-411. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-005-6762-3

Smith D. B., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 211-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.211

Solano, L., & Coda, R. (1994). Relazioni, emozioni, salute: Introduzione alla psicoimmunologia [Relationships, emotions and health: Introduction to psychoimmunology]. Padova: Piccin.

Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 741-762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x

Steel, P., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national-level analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 767-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.767

Tan, L., & Grace, R. C. (2008). Social desirability and sexual offenders: A review. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(1), 61-87.

Veenhoven, R. (1991). Questions on Happiness: Classical Topics, Modem Answers, Blind Spots. In E. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 7-26). Oxford: Pergamon.

Vereecken, C. A., & Maes, L. (2006). Comparison of a computeradministered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(4), 426-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.010

Watkins, P. C. (2004). Gratitude and subjective well-being. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 167-194). New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150100.003.0009

Watson, D., Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2010). Second European Quality of Life Survey: Subjective Well-being in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and well-being: A review and theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 890-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.1003.1005

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Gratitude: The parent of all virtues. The Psychologist, 20, 18-21.

This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.