Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Perceived Discrepancy in Satisfaction Evaluation

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates if satisfaction measures involve an implicit have-want comparison by examining the relationships between direct have-want discrepancy, amount, and satisfaction, which vary in their degree of explicitness. The have-want discrepancy measure explicitly asks respondents to rate the discrepancy between what they have and what they want. The amount measure requires respondents to think about the amount of discrepancy between what one has and what one wants, but does not explicitly ask about that. Finally, the satisfaction measure is assumed to incorporate a component of the have-want comparison but does not ask respondents to consider such a comparison in the question. Three hundred and thirty undergraduate students at National Taiwan University participated in this study. Correlation analysis showed that satisfaction has a closer relation with amount than have-want discrepancy. In addition, a mediation model in which have-want discrepancy influence amount, which then influences satisfaction, was generally supported in conventional mediation analysis and multilevel path analysis. In brief, this study showed that satisfaction measures involve an implicit have-want comparison.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calman, K. C. (1984). Quality of life of cancer patients—A hypothesis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 10, 124–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). Quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, M. W. L., & Au, K. (2005). Applications of multilevel structural equation modeling to cross-cultural research. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 598–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. H. (2000). A facet theory approach to examining overall and life facet satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 51, 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R. (1971). Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expected performance and the deviation from expectations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Locker, D., & Dunt, D. (1978). Theoretical and methodological issues in sociological studies of consumer satisfaction with medical care. Social Science & Medicine, 12, 283–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. (1995). Multiple-discrepancies theory versus resource theory. Social Indicators Research, 34, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solberg, E. C., Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Wanting, having, and satisfaction: Examining the role of desire discrepancies in satisfaction with income. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 725–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Vermunt, R., Spaans, E., & Zorge, F. (1989). Satisfaction, happiness and well-being of Dutch students. Social Indicators Research, 21, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welham, J., Haire, M., Mercer, D., & Stedman, T. (2001). A gap approach to exploring quality of life in mental health. Quality of Life Research, 10, 421–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H. (in press). Enhancing quality of life by shifting importance perception among life domains. Journal of Happiness Studies.

  • Wu, C. H., & Yao, G. (2006). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Huei Wu.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 A. Example items and format for the satisfaction questionnaire

B. Example items and format for the amount questionnaire

  1. 1.

    Do you have enough energy for everyday life?

    1. Not at all □ A little □ moderately □ mostly □ completely

:                                                  :

  1. 9.

    How healthy is your physical environment?

    1. Not at all □ A little □ A moderate amount □ very much □ extremely

:                                                  :

  1. 12.

    To what extent do you have the opportunity for leisure activities?

    1. Not at all □ A little □ moderately □ mostly □ completely

Table 8 C. Example items and format for the have-want discrepancy questionnaire

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, CH. The Role of Perceived Discrepancy in Satisfaction Evaluation. Soc Indic Res 88, 423–436 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9200-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9200-9

Keywords

Navigation