Effects of Authenticity and Well-Being on Life Satisfaction

The main expectation of the study is to highlight the existing relationship between authenticity and wellbeing and life satisfaction among the participants involved in the study (Goldman&Kernis, 2002). 

The items of Satisfaction of Life Scale (SWLS), Authenticity Scale (AS) and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI)were summed to get their scores. The items in each of the subscale of AS were also summed to get the score. Since all the items were positive, the higher the score the better. 

For evaluation of internal consistency of Satisfaction of Life Scale (SWLS), Authenticity Scale (AS) and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) a reliability tests (Cronbach α) were conducted for each of them (Franzen, 2013) . This provides information concerning qualities of individual item as well as the scale as a whole. An alpha value of 0.7 and above is generally acceptable (Franzen, 2013) . 

The descriptive analysis of the scales will be done and presented as means and standard deviation. 

In order to test the hypothesis that Participants that score high on the Authenticity Scale will have higher scores on the Satisfaction with Life Scale.Satisfaction of life will be correlated with Authenticity and Well-being (Warner, 2012) . The significance analysis of the will be interpreted at p=0.05. The analyses were done using SPSS software. 

Results 

A reliability test conducted for the three scales to test internal consistency of items in the scale. From the results, alpha value for SWLS=0.842, AS=0.694 and PGWBI=0.656. These results are satisfactory since the alpha values for the scale was 0.7 or more (Franzen, 2013) . 

The descriptive statistics of the items in Satisfaction of Life Scale (SWLS), Authenticity Scale (AS) and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) and presented as means and standard deviation. Satisfaction of Life Scale (SWLS), the first four items had a mean less than 3.5, while the mean total score of SWLS was 14.4 (SD=5.7). This implies that the life satisfaction for the respondents were slightly dissatisfied. 

Regarding its effects on life satisfaction, Proctor, Maltby, &Linley (2011) pointed out that wellbeing provides individuals with a dynamic perspective of life in which individuals are able to view life based on its dynamic nature.Authenticity Scale (AS), majority of the items scored above average (>2.5), the overall mean score was 48.9 (SD=8.6). This implies that the respondents in this study had a good sense of authenticity (Gregoire, Baron, Menard, & Lachance, 2014) . Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI), majority of the items scored above average (>2.5), the overall mean score was 77.1 (SD=4.7). This implies that the respondents in this study had a good sense of well-being. 

A multiple regression was conducted to predict Life Satisfaction from Authenticity and Well-being. Results indicate that Life Satisfaction from Authenticity and Well-being statistically significantly predicted Life satisfaction, F (2, 47) = 3.888, p < .05, R 2 = .142. Furthermore, only Authenticity was found to statistically significantly add to the prediction of Life Satisfaction (p =0.022). Withthe small R Square implying that the Authenticity and Well-beingexplain 14.2% of the variability of the Life Satisfaction. In this view, the key element to note is that people tend to achieve life satisfaction due to the idea that they do not have to worry about different aspects of their lives that would support happiness (Peterson, Ruch, Beermann, Park, &Seligman 2007). 

The results also showed that Life Satisfaction was positively correlated with Well-being while being negatively correlated to Authenticity. The general form of the equation to predict Life satisfaction from Authenticity and Well-being is generated from the coefficients is as follows: SWLS=21.094-0.216*AS+0.063*PGWBI 

Discussion

Analysis 

From the results section, one of the key elements to take note of is that the findings are able to support the general hypothesis of the research paper, which indicates that authenticity and wellbeing are key variables in determining one’s satisfaction towards life. The hypotheses of the paper include H1 and H2, which are key elements in supporting the key variable discussed in the research study regarding the issue of satisfaction towards life. The hypotheses are H1: Participants that score high on the Authenticity Scale will have higher scores on the Satisfaction with Life Scale and H2: Participants that score high on The Psychological General Well-Being Index will have higher scores on the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Authenticity Scale. The given hypotheses provide an avenue for discussing the key elements pertaining participants and their level of satisfaction based on their score in the authenticity scale. The research study will not incorporate the use of stimuli in obtaining the results in a bid to obtain actual results without evoking the reaction of the participants. 

The first key element to discuss from the results is that individuals that remain authentic and embrace wellness find themselves in a position where they are truly happy with their lives.Proctor, Maltby, & Linley (2011) pointed out that wellbeing provides individuals with a dynamic perspective of life in which individuals are able to view life based on its dynamic nature. That means that life is constantly changing thereby meaning that one’s satisfaction towards life may change from one period to another depending on their constrains that determine such changes. In this case, the SWLS score presented a mean of 14.4 with a standard deviation of 5.7, which is an indicator that majority of participants were slightly dissatisfied with life based on their individual constraints. However, Youssef ‐ Morgan &Luthans (2015) reflect on the idea of wellbeing from the position that people, who embrace wellbeing, tend to develop a higher level of personal joyfulness while referring to their personal lives, which allows them to build on their satisfaction towards life. 

The position is echoed by Reich, Kessel, &Bernieri (2013) arguing that life satisfaction acts as a reflection of what people feel, belief, or understand of themselves. That means that it becomes much easier for people to embrace satisfaction in the event that they consider themselves as unique when compared to others within the social institutions. Authenticity and wellbeing seek to ensure that one develops a sense of purpose or meaning in life (Robinson, Lopez, Ramos, &Nartova-Bochaver, 2013). This is expected to ensure that one maintains of reflect on his or her role from both a personal and societal perspective. 

The second element of discussion from the results reflects on the position that authenticity and wellbeing act as key predictors of life satisfaction within themselves without having to consider other elements of life. The predictors of life satisfaction seek to create a positive structure of understanding in which people reflect on themselves with an aim of ensuring that they achieve the expected levels of happiness. Pan, Wong, Joubert, & Chan (2008) project the fact that happiness is achieved based on the ability for people to live a life that is reflective of their expectations in terms of ensuring that they remain committed towards themselves. From that view, one is able to support the view that authenticity and wellbeing are key components that would be of value in determining the overall levels of satisfaction. The authenticity scale in this study provided a mean of 48.9 and a standard deviation of 8.6, where the Self-Alienation presented a mean of 21.1 and standard deviation of 5.7. The Authentic Living and Accepting External Influence presented a mean of 7.7 and 20.1 with a standard deviation of 3.2 and 5.3. The scores from Self-Alienation, Authentic Living, and Accepting External Influence presented the overall authenticity scale of 48.9. By maintaining authenticity, individuals reflect on their lives based on the personal view of themselves (Véronneau, Koestner, &Abela, 2005). That seeks to eliminate a situation where `people tend to believe that their lives are interconnected, as this eliminates the idea of authenticity and may affect overall wellbeing. 

On the relationship between authenticity and life satisfaction, Hofer, Busch, &Kiessling (2008) indicate that life satisfaction arises from one’s ability to reach or achieve specific goals and objectives, which are personal in nature. Through authenticity, individuals find themselves in a rather formative platform from which to reflect on their individual goals and objectives on a personal level, thus, meaning that this may differ from one individual to another (Linley, Nielsen, Gillett, & Biswas-Diener, 2010). When setting up strategies to meet these goals, one does not reflect on the approaches that others are taking towards their own goals (Sirgy, 2012). Instead, one embraces his or her own strengths and defines the actions that he or she would take from a personal perspective, which works towards improving the chances of success in meeting the goals. Ultimately, this acts as an affirmative to the fact that indeed authenticity has the capacity of ensuring that people achieve specific levels of satisfaction in their lives (Ménard& Brunet, 2011). 

The third element of discussion revolves around the position that both authenticity and wellbeing are important elements that influence acceptance of life with an aim of ensuring that people achieve the highest levels of satisfaction. People fail to achieve satisfaction due to their inability to accept themselves or their positions in life while taking into consideration that they ought to remain authentic (Ariza-Montes, Giorgi, Leal-Rodríguez, &Ramírez-Sobrino, 2017). In this case, the participants presented a PGWBI score with a mean of 77.1 and 4.7standard deviation thus indicating that the psychological well being of an individual is a key gfactor in determining the level of satisfaction. Thus, this reflects on the position that life satisfaction is an outcome of people’s acceptance of their lives regardless of the challenges that they experience, which may have varied effects on their lives. Instead, people should always consider their lives as being unique, in the way they are, as this would act as a key element that would help build their satisfaction levels towards life. The ability for people to accept their positions in life increasing their chances of achieving success, as they understand what is expected of them in building a positive front for success achievement. 

Limitations 

It is equally important to take note of the fact that the researcher encountered major limitations during the course of the study that may have affected the findings. Firstly, the researcher experienced a challenge in trying to find relevant studies that focused solely on the ideas of authenticity and wellbeing focusing on their relationship to life satisfaction. That acted as a key limitation for the researcher, as it created some form of challenge in effective presentation of the study findings. The second limitation that the researcher encountered revolves around the issue of verification of the accuracy of the sources used considering that some of the sources presented contradicting positions on the topic. Verification is important, as it helps in ensuring that the findings of the studies are reliable and valid. 

Conclusion 

In summary, authenticity and wellbeing are some of the key components that people use in their bid to improving their satisfaction towards life, as they allow people to accept themselves for who they are. Authenticity allows people to remain unique in every aspect of their lives with wellbeing reflecting on the need for having to embrace personal joyfulness. One key aspect to note with regard to these two elements is that they both reflect on a personal position from which individuals would be able to build their satisfaction levels individually. 

References  

 Franzen, M. D. (2013). Reliability and Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment . Springer Science & Business Media. 

Gregoire, S., Baron, L., Menard, J., & Lachance, L. (2014). The Authenticity Scale: Psychometric Properties of a French Translation and Exploration of Its Relationships With Personality and Well-Being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 46 , 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030962 

Warner, R. M. (2012). Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques . SAGE. 

 Ariza-Montes, A., Giorgi, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A., &Ramírez-Sobrino, J. (2017).Authenticity and Subjective Wellbeing within the Context of a Religious Organization.Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1228. 

Boyraz, G., &Kuhl, M. L. (2015).Self-focused attention, authenticity, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 87(1), 70-75. 

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003).Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life.Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 403-425. 

Goldman, B. M., &Kernis, M. H. (2002).The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18-20. 

Hofer, J., Busch, H., &Kiessling, F. (2008).Individual pathways to life satisfaction: The significance of traits and motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(4), 503-520. 

Jovanović, V., &Gavrilov-Jerković, V. (2016).The structure of adolescent affective well-being: The case of the PANAS among Serbian adolescents.Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2097-2117. 

Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., &Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological science, 24(3), 280-288. 

Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010).Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists.International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 6-15. 

Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011).Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 331-346. 

Pan, J. Y., Wong, D. F. K., Joubert, L., & Chan, C. L. W. (2008).The protective function of meaning of life on life satisfaction among Chinese students in Australia and Hong Kong: A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of American College Health, 57(2), 221-232. 

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005).Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of happiness studies, 6(1), 25-41. 

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149-156. 

Ponocny, I., Weismayer, C., Stross, B., & Dressler, S. G. (2016). Are most people happy? Exploring the meaning of subjective well-being ratings.Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2635-2653. 

Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 153-169. 

Reich, W. A., Kessel, E. M., &Bernieri, F. J. (2013).Life satisfaction and the self: Structure, content, and function. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(1), 293-308. 

Reinecke, L., &Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(1), 95-102. 

Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K., &Nartova-Bochaver, S. (2013). Authenticity, social context, and well-being in the United States, England, and Russia: A three country comparative analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(5), 719-737. 

Sheldon, K. M., &Niemiec, C. P. (2006).It's not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(2), 331-335. 

Şimşek, Ö. F. (2009). Happiness revisited: Ontological well-being as a theory-based construct of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(5), 505-522. 

Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia (Vol. 50).Springer Science & Business Media. 

Tejeda, M. J. (2015). Exploring the supportive effects of spiritual well-being on job satisfaction given adverse work conditions.Journal of business ethics, 131(1), 173-181. 

Vainio, M. M., &Daukantaitė, D. (2016).Grit and different aspects of well-being: Direct and indirect relationships via sense of coherence and authenticity.Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2119-2147. 

van den Bosch, R., &Taris, T. W. (2014). The authentic worker's well-being and performance: The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes.The Journal of psychology, 148(6), 659-681. 

Véronneau, M. H., Koestner, R. F., &Abela, J. R. (2005). Intrinsic need satisfaction and well–being in children and adolescents: An application of the self–determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 280-292. 

Youssef ‐ Morgan, C. M., &Luthans, F. (2015).Psychological capital and well ‐ being. Stress and Health, 31(3), 180-188. 

APPENDIX 

Table 1: Reliability Test Statistics 

Scale	Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
SWLS	.842	5
AS	.694	12
PGWBI	.656	22

Table 2: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) 

	Mean	Standard Deviation
SWLSQ1	3.1	1.4
SWLSQ2	2.5	1.2
SWLSQ3	2.6	1.4
SWLSQ4	2.6	1.4
SWLSQ5	3.7	1.8

Table 3: Authenticity Scale (AS) 

	Mean	Standard Deviation
ASQ1	1.7	1.0
ASQ2	5.1	1.8
ASQ3	5.0	1.7
ASQ4	5.4	1.5
ASQ5	4.8	1.6
ASQ6	4.8	1.5
ASQ7	5.3	1.7
ASQ8	2.2	1.3
ASQ9	2.1	1.3
ASQ10	5.3	1.7
ASQ11	1.7	.7
ASQ12	5.4	1.9

Table 4: Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) 

	Mean	Standard Deviation
PGWBQ1	2.9	.9
PGWBQ2	4.3	1.1
PGWBQ3	5.2	1.0
PGWBQ4	2.4	1.1
PGWBQ5	4.9	1.2
PGWBQ6	2.6	.8
PGWBQ7	1.9	.8
PGWBQ8	4.1	1.2
PGWBQ9	2.9	1.1
PGWBQ10	1.5	.6
PGWBQ11	5.3	1.2
PGWBQ12	3.7	1.4
PGWBQ13	4.5	1.1
PGWBQ14	1.5	1.0
PGWBQ15	4.3	1.1
PGWBQ16	2.8	1.0
PGWBQ17	4.6	1.3
PGWBQ18	4.5	1.4
PGWBQ19	2.6	1.0
PGWBQ20	4.0	1.2
PGWBQ21	2.6	1.1
PGWBQ22	4.0	1.4

Table 5: Scores 

Score	Mean	Standard Deviation
SWLS	14.4	5.7
AS  Authentic Living  Accepting External Influence  Self-Alienation	48.9  7.7  20.1  21.1	8.6  3.2  5.3  5.7
PGWBI	77.1	4.7

Model Summary
Model		R	R Square			Adjusted R Square			Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.377 a	.142			.105			5.40120
a. Predictors: (Constant), PGWBI, AS
ANOVA a
Model					Sum of Squares			df		Mean Square			F		Sig.
1	Regression				226.872			2		113.436			3.888		.027 b
	Residual				1371.128			47		29.173
	Total				1598.000			49
a. Dependent Variable: SWLS
b. Predictors: (Constant), PGWBI, AS
Coefficients a
Model				Unstandardized Coefficients							Standardized Coefficients			t		Sig.
				B			Std. Error				Beta
1	(Constant)			21.094			6.782							3.110		.003
	AS			-.216			.092				-.327			-2.363		.022
	PGWBI			.063			.068				.129			.931		.356
a. Dependent Variable: SWLS