Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 469–480 | Cite as

Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?

  • Chia-Huei WuEmail author
Article

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of importance weighting when importance ranks were considered as the weighting values by (1) examining the range-of-affect hypothesis in the within-subject context and (2) comparing performances of weighted and unweighted satisfaction scores in predicting overall judgment of subjective well-being. Participants were 167 undergraduates at National Taiwan University. The mean age was 19.80 years (SD = 1.98). They were first asked to complete the measurements for global life satisfaction and overall QOL and then completed a QOL questionnaire for rating satisfaction, perceived have–want discrepancy on 12 life domains and ranking importance on these domains. Hierarchical linear modeling with a random-coefficients regression model was applied to examine the range-of-affect hypothesis in the within-subject context. Correlation analysis was applied to evaluate performances of weighted and unweighted satisfaction scores in predicting overall judgment of subjective well-being. Results of this study supported the range-of-affect hypothesis, showing that the relationship between item have–want discrepancy and item satisfaction is stronger for high importance items than low importance items for a given individual. Correlation analysis found that the four weighted satisfaction scores computed from the algorithms proposed by Hsieh (Social Indicators Research 61:227–240, 2003) were not superior to unweighted satisfaction score in predicting overall QOL and global life satisfaction. All these findings suggested that weighting satisfaction scores with importance ranks may not have theoretical basis and empirical contribution.

Keywords

Weighting Importance Satisfaction Hierarchical linear modeling Quality of life 

References

  1. Chang, H. T., Yao, G., & Wu, C. H. (2007). Investigating quality of life related terms with multidimensional scaling. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Cummins, R. A. (1997). Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale – Adult: Manual. Deakin: University Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas R., & Smith H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewen, R. B. (1967). Weighting components of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrans, C., & Powers, M. (1985) Quality of Life Index: Development and psychometric properties. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 15–24.Google Scholar
  9. Frisch, M. B. (1992). Use of the Quality of Life Inventory in problem assessment, treatment planning for cognitive therapy of depression. In A. Freeman & F. M. Dattlio (Eds.), Comprehensive casebook of cognitive therapy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hsieh, C. M. (2003). Counting importance: The case of life satisfaction and relative domain importance. Social Indicators Research, 61, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsieh, C. M. (2004). To weight or not to weight: the role of domain importance in quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 68, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lance, C. E., Mallard, A. G., & Michalos, A. C. (1995). Tests of the causal directions of global-life facet satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 34, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  15. McFarlin, D. B., Coster, E. A., Rice, R.W., & Coopper-Alison, T. (1995). Facet importance and job satisfaction: Another look at the range of affect hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. W. (1992). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mikes, P. S., & Hulin, C. L. (1968). Use of importance as weighting component of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mobley, W. H., & Locke, E. A. (1970). The relationship of value importance to satisfaction. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raphael, D., Rukholm, E., Brown, I., Hill-Bailey, P., & Donato, E. (1996). The quality of life profile-Adolescent version: Background, description, and initial validation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991a). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rice, R. W., Markus, K., Moyer, R. P., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991b). Facet importance and job satisfaction: Two experimental tests of Locke’s range of affect hypothesis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1977–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell, L. B., Hubley, A. M., Palepu, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2006). Does weighting capture what’s important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality of life measure. Social Indicators Research, 75, 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  24. SAS Institute Inc (2000). SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements, release 8.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Staples, D. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). A study of the impact of factor importance weightings on job satisfaction measures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The WHOQOL Group. (1998). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. The WHOQOL-Taiwan Group. (1999). The User’s manual of the development of the WHOQOL-100 Taiwan version (1st ed.). Taipei: National Taiwan University.Google Scholar
  28. Waters, L. K. (1969). The utility of importance weights in predicting overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 29, 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waters, L. K., & Roach, D. (1971). Comparison of unweighted and importance- weighted job satisfaction measures for three samples of female office workers. Psychological Reports, 28, 779–782.Google Scholar
  30. Wu, C. H. (in press). Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: Hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data. Social Indicators Research.Google Scholar
  31. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006a). Do we need to weight satisfaction scores with importance ratings in measuring quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 78, 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006b). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006c). Analysis of factorial invariance across gender in the Taiwan version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2007). Importance has been considered in satisfaction evaluation: An experimental examination of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 81, 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNational Taiwan UniversityWenshan District, Taipei CityTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations