Importance has been Considered in Satisfaction Evaluation: an Experimental Examination of Locke’s Range-of-affect Hypothesis

Abstract

Importance weighting is a common practice in quality of life (QOL) measurement research. Based on the widespread idea that important domains should make a greater contribution to individuals’ QOL total score, the weighting procedure of multiplying item satisfaction by an item’s importance has been adopted in many QOL instruments. Locke’s [1969, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4, 309–336; 1976, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1297–1343] range-of-affect hypothesis indicated that a satisfaction evaluation is determined by the have-want discrepancy, importance, and the interaction of the have-want discrepancy and importance, implying that a satisfaction evaluation incorporates the judgment of importance and weighting the satisfaction score with the importance score is unnecessary. The purpose of the current study was to address the issue of importance weighting by examining Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis in the context of QOL research. A within-subject experiment was conducted to see if, given a varying amount of discrepancy, participants would reveal whether or not satisfaction/dissatisfaction is related to the dimension of importance placed on the object. Forty undergraduate students at National Taiwan University participated in the current study. Results revealed that the association between have-want discrepancy and object satisfaction is stronger on the high important dimension than the less important dimension. Generally, the results were consistent with Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis, revealing that a satisfaction evaluation has incorporated the judgment of item importance, suggesting that the procedure of importance weighting is unnecessary.