IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ariqol/v17y2022i3d10.1007_s11482-021-10016-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are all Life Domains Created Equal? Domain Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Research

Author

Listed:
  • Chang-ming Hsieh

    (University of Illinois Chicago)

Abstract

While there are subjective well-being measures that incorporate the perceived importance of various life domains into the measurement conceptualization and construction, many researchers follow the approach of summing satisfaction ratings or scores of life domains to represent overall life satisfaction or subjective well-being (SWB). The equal-weight, equal-importance (of domain-specific satisfaction variables) assumption implied by the practice of summing satisfaction ratings to represent SWB was pointed out previously but has not been carefully examined. This paper assessed the plausibility of the equal-weight, equal-importance assumption by 1) comparing whether or not various life domains are perceived as of equal importance, and 2) examining whether or not all domain-specific satisfaction variables account for the variance in SWB to a similar degree. Findings of this study indicated that 1) all life domains were not perceived as equally important, and 2) a small number (subset) of domain-specific satisfaction variables accounted for a large portion of the variance in SWB. These findings call into question the plausibility of the equal-weight, equal-importance assumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang-ming Hsieh, 2022. "Are all Life Domains Created Equal? Domain Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Research," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1909-1925, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:17:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11482-021-10016-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11482-021-10016-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11482-021-10016-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11482-021-10016-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2013. "Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 681-693, January.
    2. Chia-huei Wu, 2008. "Examining the appropriateness of importance weighting on satisfaction score from range-of-affect hypothesis: hierarchical linear modeling for within-subject data," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 101-111, March.
    3. Lara Russell & Anita Hubley & Anita Palepu & Bruno Zumbo, 2006. "Does Weighting Capture What’s Important? Revisiting Subjective Importance Weighting with a Quality of Life Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 141-167, January.
    4. Robert Cummins, 1996. "The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 303-328, January.
    5. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2004. "To Weight or not to Weight: The Role of Domain Importance in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 163-174, September.
    6. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2006. "Do We Need to Weight Item Satisfaction by Item Importance? A Perspective from Locke’s Range-Of-Affect Hypothesis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 485-502, December.
    7. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2016. "Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 777-792, June.
    8. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 469-480, May.
    9. Chia-Huei Wu & Grace Yao, 2006. "Do We Need to Weight Satisfaction Scores with Importance Ratings in Measuring Quality of Life?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 305-326, September.
    10. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2003. "Counting Importance: The Case of Life Satisfaction and Relative Domain Importance," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 227-240, February.
    11. Mariano Rojas, 2006. "Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: is it a simple relationship?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 467-497, November.
    12. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2014. "Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Evaluation of Domain Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurements," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 483-493, October.
    13. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2018. "Importance Weighting in Client Satisfaction Measures: Lessons from the Life Satisfaction Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 45-60, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Akinori Kitsuki & Shunsuke Managi, 2023. "Importance Weighting in Subjective Well-Being Measures: Using Marginal Utilities as Weights for Domain Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1101-1120, March.
    2. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li, 2022. "Importance Weighting in the Domain-of-Life Approach to Subjective Well-Being: the Consideration of Age," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 525-540, April.
    3. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2016. "Domain Importance in Subjective Well-Being Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 777-792, June.
    4. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2018. "Importance Weighting in Client Satisfaction Measures: Lessons from the Life Satisfaction Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 45-60, July.
    5. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2013. "Issues in Evaluating Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 681-693, January.
    6. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2014. "Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Evaluation of Domain Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurements," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 483-493, October.
    7. Chang-Ming Hsieh, 2012. "Importance is Not Unimportant: The Role of Importance Weighting in QOL Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 267-278, November.
    8. Chang-ming Hsieh & Qiguang Li & Houchao Lyu, 2020. "A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 637-651, November.
    9. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2012. "Should We Give Up Domain Importance Weighting in QoL Measures?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 99-109, August.
    10. M. Joseph Sirgy & Min Young Kim & Mohsen Joshanloo & Dong-Jin Lee & Michael Bosnjak, 2020. "The Relationship Between Domain Satisfaction and Domain Importance: The Moderating Role of Depression," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2007-2030, August.
    11. Chia-Huei Wu & Lung Chen & Ying-Mei Tsai, 2009. "Investigating Importance Weighting of Satisfaction Scores from a Formative Model with Partial Least Squares Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 351-363, February.
    12. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2019. "Importance of Health and Relative Importance of Satisfaction with One’s Own Health: A Case of Frail Immigrant Older Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 81-93, May.
    13. Jorge Guardiola & Andrés Picazo-Tadeo, 2014. "Building Weighted-Domain Composite Indices of Life Satisfaction with Data Envelopment Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 257-274, May.
    14. Jorge Guardiola & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2013. "Weighting life domains with Data Envelopment Analysis," Working Papers 1311, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    15. Ssu-Kuang Chen & Sunny Lin, 2014. "The Latent Profiles of Life Domain Importance and Satisfaction in a Quality of Life Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 429-445, April.
    16. Chia-Huei Wu & Cheng-Ta Yang & Li-Na Huang, 2014. "On the Predictive Effect of Multidimensional Importance-Weighted Quality of Life Scores on Overall Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 933-943, February.
    17. Chang-ming Hsieh, 2017. "Health, Quality of Homecare Services and Quality of Life: A Case of Frail Older Immigrant Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(2), pages 711-723, November.
    18. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "Can We Weight Satisfaction Score with Importance Ranks Across Life Domains?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 469-480, May.
    19. Clara Viñas-Bardolet & Monica Guillen-Royo & Joan Torrent-Sellens, 2020. "Job Characteristics and Life Satisfaction in the EU: a Domains-of-Life Approach," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(4), pages 1069-1098, September.
    20. Tsung-Chi Cheng & Chao-Yin Lin & Shu-Chen Wang, 2023. "Exploring factors related to agreement between importance and satisfaction of subjective well-being indicators: evidence from Taiwan," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2811-2839, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:17:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11482-021-10016-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.