2017
DOI: 10.11144/javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
69
1
6

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
1
69
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Several limitations should be noted before drawing conclusions. First, the use of self-reported measures might have enhanced social desirability and thereby affected the reporting of trauma and well-being measures (e.g., Caputo, 2017). Second, although a mediational relationship was examined in this cross-sectional study, causality between the psychological constructs should be interpreted with caution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Several limitations should be noted before drawing conclusions. First, the use of self-reported measures might have enhanced social desirability and thereby affected the reporting of trauma and well-being measures (e.g., Caputo, 2017). Second, although a mediational relationship was examined in this cross-sectional study, causality between the psychological constructs should be interpreted with caution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Limitations are the methods used to select the study group and the low response rate, which make it difficult to generalize the results, as well as the cross-sectional design, which does not allow us to draw conclusions concerning causality. Social desirability bias for self-reported data can threat the validity, but recently reported findings showed that it might play a little role in well-being self-report measures [ 56 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the limitations of the study regards the use of self-reported scales, which creates problems related to response styles (e.g., acquiescence or social desirability) [104]. To address this limitation, participation was anonymous, the evaluation was done in a standardized manner, strange response patterns were identified, and atypical or extreme values in the database were removed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%