Life satisfaction and associated social factors among college students in Kottayam district, Kerala

INTRODUCTION

Youth are the strength of any society. They are an important human resource and a healthy percentage of young people is considered essential for the development of the nation. Therefore, the health and well-being of young people are of foremost importance. Today’s youth are struggling with a number of issues which affects their mental health but also physical health as well-both directly and indirectly.^1,2 Many psychological constructs have been studied as factors affecting physical and mental health of young people. Important among these include life satisfaction and social support.

Life satisfaction refers to the cognitive, judgemental component of subjective well-being the other two being positive affect and negative affect(affective or emotional components).^3,4 According to Shin and Johnson(1978) life satisfaction is the” global assessment of a person's quality of life according to his own chosen criteria.”⁵ People’s level of life satisfaction depends on a standard they have set for themselves and not on externally set standards.⁴ As life satisfaction is based on overall cognitive assessments of quality of life, it is typically less prone to change as a result of short-term emotional responses to occurrences in life as in the case of positive affect and negative affect. Therefore life satisfaction is viewed as a more stable component and the indicator most appropriate for use in research on young people's perceptions of their life circumstances.^6,7 It was found that young people reporting high life satisfaction had better relationships with peers and parents and less intrapersonal distress compared to those with low life satisfaction.⁸ Adolescents with high levels of life satisfaction are less likely than those with low levels of life satisfaction to engage in externalizing behaviours due to stressful events.⁹ Low life satisfaction has been associated with a higher risk of suicide.¹⁰

Social support was defined by Cobb (1976) as “Information leading the subject to believe that he is cared for and loved, esteemed and a member of a network of mutual obligations.”¹¹ Cohen and Syme(1985) defined social support as “resources provided by other persons”.¹² Social support from family and others have been found to protect persons from adverse and stressful events through buffering effect.^13,14 Decreased social support was found to be associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity due to various diseases.¹⁵ Perceived social support and family factors have the potential to change a person's cardiovascular health behaviours-smoking, regular exercise, low cholesterol diet-directly by providing resources, or by altering the person's psychological state. Negative social interactions would lead to depressive symptoms, which in turn would have a negative impact on health behaviours.¹⁶ Among adolescents and college students social support is an important determinant of physical activity.^17,18 Youth having higher social support from family were found to be less likely to involve in risky or unsafe sexual behaviour.^19,20 Social support was found to be inversely related to suicide ideation, depression and anxiety, and alcohol and substance abuse.^21-24,19

Studies on social support and life satisfaction among adolescents and young adults are few in Kerala. This study was conducted to assess the level of life satisfaction and social support and to determine the relationship of social support and socio-demographic factors with life satisfaction among students of arts and science colleges in Kottayam district.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate students of arts and science colleges in Kottayam district between August 2022 and November 2022. 464 participants were selected through two-stage (random) sampling. Undergraduate students of both gender of age 18 or above were included in the study. Students who refused to give consent and blind students were excluded.

Clearance from institutional ethics and research committee and permission from respective colleges were obtained. Informed written consent and participant information sheet was obtained from the participant before the onset of study. Participants were clearly explained about the aspects of study before data collection and confidentiality was maintained at all stages of the study. All financial expenses were borne by the researcher.

Data collection tools and techniques

A semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire consisting of socio-demographic characteristics, Multidimensional scale of perceived social support and the satisfaction with life scale was used. Socio-economic status was assessed using modified Kuppuswamy scale (2022).

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) by Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet and Farley, 1988) was used as the measure of social support among study participants. It is divided into 3 subscales- friends, family and significant other. The scale contains 12 items rated on a 7 point likert-type scale ranging from 1- very strongly disagree to 7-very strongly agree. The mean scores of each subscale is calculated by adding items and dividing by 4 while the total mean score is calculated by adding all items and dividing by 12. To calculate mean scores: 1) Significant Other Subscale: Sum across items 1, 2, 5, and 10, then divide by 4, 2) Family Subscale: Sum across items 3, 4, 8, & 11, then divide by 4, 3) Friends Subscale: Sum across items 6, 7, 9, and 12, then divide by 4, 4) Total Scale: Sum across all 12 items, then divide by 12.

A mean score ranging from 1 to 2.9 is considered as low support, score ranging from 3 to 4.9 is considered to be moderate support and a score of 5.1 to 7 as high support.^25,26

The satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al- 5 items). A 5-item scale designed to measure global cognitive judgments of one’s life satisfaction. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmnos, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used as a measure of the judgmental component of subjective well-being (SWB). Participants indicate how much they agree or disagree with each of the 5 items using a 7-point scale that ranges from 7- strongly agree to 1- strongly disagree. Scoring is kept continuous. Scores are between 5 and 35. Score are classified as-extremely satisfied (30-35), satisfied (25-29), slightly satisfied (20-24), slightly dissatisfied (15-19), dissatisfied (10-14), extremely dissatisfied (5-9).^27,28

Operational definitions

Satisfaction with life

Life satisfaction is the global assessment of a person's quality of life according to his own chosen criteria.⁵ Life satisfaction is the cognitive, global appraisal of life as a whole. Life satisfaction is seen as one element of subjective well-being. It is distinct from, but related to, psychological well-being.²⁹

Perceived social support refers to how individuals perceive friends, family and others as sources available to provide material, psychological and overall support during times of need.³⁰ Aided colleges refers to colleges receiving funds from government. Unaided colleges refers to colleges that do not receive any funds or aid from government.

Data analysis

Data was entered into Microsoft excel and analysed using SPSS version 25. Mean and standard deviation was calculated for continuous variables. Normality of the data was tested using Shapiro Wilk test. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentage. Spearman’s correlation was used to determine the relationship between social support and life satisfaction and non-parametric tests (Mann Whitney test, Kruskal Wallis test) were used to assess if there is a significant difference in life satisfaction between independent categorical variables.

RESULTS

Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants

The mean age of the study participants was 19.06 (SD 1.121) and median 19, ranging from 18 to 25 years. Majority of the study participants were females (55.2%).

Among the study participants, majority were from aided colleges (72.2%) and belonging to nuclear families (80%). While only 27.2% participated in sports activities regularly, nearly half of the participants were involved in other extra-curricular activities. Among the study participants, 6 were from upper class, 103 (22.2%) were from upper middle class, 273 (58.8%) lower middle class, 81 (17.5%) from upper lower and one participant from lower class. For further analysis upper and upper middle class were grouped as upper (109, 23.5%) and lower middle, upper lower and lower class were grouped as lower (355, 76.5%) (Table 1).

Social support of the study participants

Mean score of total perceived social support of the study participants was 5.63 (1.03) and median 5.83, range of 4.91 and interquartile range 1.5. The mean score of perceived family support was 5.72 (1.28) with median of 6.25. Mean score of perceived friends support was 5.67

(1.17) with median of 6. Mean score of perceived support from significant others was 5.50 (1.58), median 6. The distribution of data was found to be non-normal according to Shapiro-Wilk test (p<0.05).

Among the study participants, majority (74.1%) were having high perceived social support (total). They also showed high perceived social support from family (73.9%), from friends (72.4%) and from significant others (66.6%) (Table 2).

Life satisfaction of the study participants

In the study the mean score of life satisfaction was 21.22 (6.315) and median 22 range of 30 and interquartile range 9. The distribution of data was found to be non-normal according to Shapiro-Wilk test (p<0.05).

Table 3 shows distribution of study participants based on life satisfaction. Among the study participants, only 11% were found to be extremely satisfied with life and 20.7% satisfied with life, while a significant portion were either slightly satisfied (28%) or slightly dissatisfied (25.9%).

Relationship between life satisfaction and social support

Table 4 shows that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived social support (total) (Spearman’s rho (rs) =0.391, p<0.001), perceived support from family (rs = 0.394, p<0.001), perceived support from friends (rs =0.187, p<0.001) and perceived social support from significant others (rs =0.280, p<0.001) (Table 4).

Life satisfaction and socio-demographic factors of study

The life satisfaction scores among female study participants was found to be statistically significantly higher than males (Z=2.433, p=0.015) (Table 5). There was no statistically significant difference in the life satisfaction scores between first, second and third year of study (H=0.246, p=0.889) (Table 6).

DISCUSSION

The current study was conducted among 464 undergraduate college students of Kottayam district from four aided and two unaided colleges, to assess the level of life satisfaction and social support and to determine the relationship of social support and socio-demographic factors with life satisfaction among students of arts and science colleges in Kottayam district. A two stage random sampling technique was used. Data was collected using a self-administered proforma.

In our study mean score of perceived social support of the study participants was 5.63 (1.03) and the mean score of life satisfaction was 21.22 (6.315). This is comparable with the results of study conducted in Jordan among university students by Alorani and Alradaydeh.³¹ The perceived social support from family was higher than the perceived social support from friends and significant others. This can be attributed to the cultural peculiarities of our country where family bonds are generally strong and parents support their children financially and emotionally. This is consistent with the results obtained by Alorani and Alradaydeh in Jordan where cultural and family factors are similar to our country.³¹

The results of the current study indicates that there is a positive correlation between perceived social support of the study participants and life satisfaction (r=0.391, p<0.001). Perceived social support from family (r=0.394, p<0.001), friends (r=0.187, p<0.001) and significant others (r=0.280, p<0.001) were also positively correlated with life satisfaction. Parpoochi, Ahmadi and Sohrabi in Iran found that social support had a positive effect on life satisfaction(p<0.01).³² Similar result was obtained by Ahamar Khan in India.(p<0.01).³³

The difference in life satisfaction based on socio-demographic variables.. Age, gender, course of study, year of study, type of college, type of family, regular engagement in sports activities, involvement in other extracurricular activities and socio-economic status were the factors under consideration. The life satisfaction among female gender was statistically significantly higher than among males (Z=2.433, p=0.015). This similar to the findings of previous studies by Kaya, Tansey, Melekoğlu, Çakıroğlu in Turkey and studies conducted in North India.^34-36 A study conducted by Jaisri M. in Thrissur showed higher level of life satisfaction among females.³⁷ In the current study, there was no statistically significant difference in the life satisfaction based on any other socio-economic variable.

This study has some limitations. The study used a self-administered questionnaire and therefore susceptible to response bias due to self-reporting of responses. Being a cross-sectional study, the temporality of the relationship between the variables under study could not be established

CONCLUSION

The mean age of the participants was 19.06 (1.121) ranging from 18 to 25 years. Among the study participants, majority (74.1%) were having high social support. Only 11% were found to be extremely satisfied with life and 20.7% satisfied with life, while 4.5% were extremely dissatisfied with life and 9.9% were dissatisfied with life. Majority were slightly dissatisfied with life (25.9%) or were slightly satisfied with life (28%). Therefore there is a scope for improvement in the level of life satisfaction of the college students. It was found that life satisfaction had a positive correlation with total perceived social support social support and perceived family support, friends support and support from significant others. The females were found to have higher life satisfaction compared to males.

Recommendations

Periodic assessment and screening of psychosocial health indicators of students to identify those with low social support and life satisfaction should be done in colleges. Provision of counselling services at all colleges should be made mandatory. Student self-help groups, mentorship programs involving faculty and senior students and active involvement of PTA can help in ensuring social support and thereby life satisfaction of the students. Further studies should be conducted to identify factors associated with psychosocial correlates of youth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank all the participants who were involved in the study.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee

REFERENCES

1. 1. WHO. Adolescent and young adult health, 2023. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescents-health-risks-and-solutions. Accessed 26 May 2023.
2. 2. WHO. Mental health of adolescents, 2021. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health. Accessed 26 May 2023.
3. 3. Andrews FM, Withey SB. Social Indicators of Well-Being. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1976.
4. 4. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol bulletin. 1984;95(3):542.
5. 5. Shin DC, Johnson DM. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soci Indicat Res. 1978;5(1–4):475–92.
6. 6. Gilman R, Huebner ES, Laughlin JE. A first study of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale with adolescents. 2000;52:135-60.
7. 7. Eid M, Diener E. Global judgments of subjective well-being: situational variability and long-term stability. Soci Indicat Res. 2004;65(3):245–77.
8. 8. Gilman R, Huebner ES. Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. J Youth Adolesc. 2006;35:311-9.
9. 9. Suldo SM, Huebner ES. Does life satisfaction moderate the effects of stressful life events on psychopathological behavior during adolescence? Sch Psychol Quart. 2004;19(2):93-105.
10. 10. Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Honkanen R, Viinamäki H, Heikkilä K, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M. Life satisfaction and suicide: a 20-year follow-up study. AJP. 2001;158(3):433-9.
11. 11. Cobb S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomat Medi. 1976;38(5):300.
12. 12. Cohen S, Syme L. Issue in the study and application of social support. Academic press Inc.;1985.
13. 13. Frey CU, Röthlisberger C. Social support in healthy adolescents. J Youth Adolesc. 1996;25(1):17-31.
14. 14. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psycholog Bullet. 1985;98(2):310–57.
15. 15. Berkman LF. Assessing the physical health effects of social networks and social support. Annu Rev Publ Health. 1984;5(1):413-32.
16. 16. Franks P, Campbell TL, Shields CG. Social relationships and health: The relative roles of family functioning and social support. Soci Sci Med. 1992;34(7):779-88.
17. 17. Allgöwer A, Wardle J, Steptoe A. Depressive symptoms, social support, and personal health behaviors in young men and women. Health Psychol. 2001;20(3):223-7.
18. 18. Silva P, Lott R, Mota J, Welk G. Direct and indirect effects of social support on youth physical activity behavior. Pedia Exer Sci. 2014;26(1):86-94.
19. 19. Zaleski EH, Levey-Thors C, Schiaffino KM. Coping mechanisms, stress, social support, and health problems in college students. Appl Developm Sci. 1998;2(3):127-37.
20. 20. Kalina O, Geckova AM, Klein D, Jarcuska P, Orosova O, Van Dijk JP, et al. Psychosocial factors associated with sexual behaviour in early adolescence. Euro J Contracep Reproduct Health Care. 2011;16(4):298–306.
21. 21. Arria AM, O'Grady KE, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, Wilcox HC, Wish ED. Suicide ideation among college students: A multivariate analysis. Arch Suici Res. 2009;13(3):230-46.
22. 22. Asfaw H, Yigzaw N, Yohannis Z, Fekadu G, Alemayehu Y. Prevalence and associated factors of suicidal ideation and attempt among undergraduate medical students of Haramaya University, Ethiopia. A cross sectional study. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0236398.
23. 23. Hefner J, Eisenberg D. Social support and mental health among college students. Am J Orthopsych. 2009;79(4):491-9.
24. 24. Wills TA, Vaughan R. Social support and substance use in early adolescence. J Behav Med. 1989;12(4):321-39.
25. 25. Wilcox S. Multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2010;2(3):175-82.
26. 26. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social Support. J personal Assess. 1988;52(1):30-41.
27. 27. Diener E. Understanding Scores on the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Available at: https://eddiener.com/scales/7. Accessed 26 May 2023.
28. 28. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Personal Assess. 1985;49(1):71-5.
29. 29. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Personal Soci Psychol. 1995;69(4):719-27.
30. 30. Ioannou M, Kassianos AP, Symeou M. Coping with depressive symptoms in young adults: Perceived social support protects against depressive symptoms only under moderate levels of stress. Frontiers Psychol. 2019;9:2780.
31. 31. Alorani OI, Alradaydeh MF. Spiritual well-being, perceived social support, and life satisfaction among university students. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2018;23(3):291-8.
32. 32. Parpoochi B, Ahmadi M, Sohrabi F. The relationship of religiousness and social support with life satisfaction among university students. Knowl Res Appl Psychol. 2013;14(3):60-8.
33. 33. Khan MA. Impact of social support on life satisfaction among adolescents. Int J Ind Psychol. 2015;2(2):98-104.
34. 34. Kaya C, Tansey TN, Melekoğlu M, Çakiroğlu O. Stress and life satisfaction of Turkish college students. Coll Stud J. 2015;49(2):257-61.
35. 35. Khan M, Shirazi M, Ahmad M. Spirituality and life satisfaction among Adolescents in India. J Subconti res. 2011;3:71–84.
36. 36. Tiwari SK, Singh S, Lindinger-Sternart S, Patel AK. Self-esteem and life satisfaction among university students of Eastern Uttar Pradesh of India: A demographical perspective. Ind J Posi Psychol. 2018;9(3).
37. 37. Jaisri M. Life satisfaction, perceived social support and affect of adolescents. Int J Res Soc Sci. 2018;8(3):281-95.