Use and misuse of Locke’s range-of-affect hypothesis in subjective well-being research

Edwin Locke’s (1969, 1976, 1984) range-of-affect (RoA) hypothesis played a critical role in the literature on job satisfaction. Drawing on the parallel between job facets (e.g., freedom and promotion opportunities) to job and life domains (e.g., health and family) to life, the RoA hypothesis has also been applied to the subjective well-being (SWB) literature. The application of the RoA hypothesis to the SWB literature has focused on the topic of domain importance weighting which refers to the use of weighting of domain importance in aggregating domain-specific satisfaction to obtain overall satisfaction or SWB. The purpose of this study is to examine the applicability of the RoA hypothesis to the SWB literature, particularly concerning the topic of domain importance weighting. Based on the analysis of two survey data sets, this study found that not all empirical evidence supporting the RoA hypothesis from the job satisfaction literature could be replicated in the context of SWB. This study also pointed out that the empirical evidence presented to oppose domain importance weighting in the SWB context was based on an approach that deviated from the conventional approach of the null hypothesis significance test. The applicability of the RoA hypothesis from the job satisfaction context to the SWB context should not be assumed.