ISSN 2520-6265 (print)
ISSN 2520-6273 (online)
Authors:
A. G. Vinogradov, PhD (Candidate of Psychological Sciences), Associate Professor (docent), Social Psychology Department,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
ORCID: 0000-0003-1250-3863
E-mail: a.g.vinogradov@knu.ua
A. O. Golovina, Postgraduate student, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
ORCID: 0000-0003-0366-3961
E-mail: catowin.alia@gmail.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/upj.2021.2(16).2
Article Information
Issue: 2(16) 2021, pages: 21-35
Language: Ukrainian
Received: 12.09.2021
1 st Revision: 19.09.2021
Accepted: 22.09.2021
The common approach to measuring satisfaction with life or other complex phenomenon is to calculate a simple or weighted sum of satisfaction scores for its individual domains or aspects. There is a widespread perception among researchers that the validity of a composite score can be increased when domain satisfaction scores are weighted by the importance that respondents assign to the respective domains, but empirical studies do not confirm this assumption. The article is devoted to finding of conditions under which individual importance weighting of satisfaction with the state of democracy in Ukraine demonstrates higher validity for predicting overall satisfaction compared to unit-weighted and normatively weighted composites.
In the present study, importance weighting was investigated on the data of sixth round of European Social Survey collected in Ukraine (N = 2178). It has been shown that the validity of an individual importance weighting of satisfaction with democracy depends on intra-individual variability of the aspects importance ratings. Using hierarchical linear regression, a significant (up to 11%) statistically significant increase in the percentage of explained variance of overall satisfaction with democracy was found when adding to the model an individual weighted indicator in a sample of respondents with differentiated perceptions of 14 aspects of democracy. The article also demonstrates an interesting trend: in the regression equations, individual importance weighting can play a role of a suppressor variable.
Key words: satisfaction with democracy, individual importance weighting, normative importance weighting, intra-individual variability.
References transliterated:
Baviskar, S., & Malone, M. F. T. (2004). What Democracy Means to Citizens – and Why It Matters. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 76, 3–23. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/erlacs.9682
Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2013). Democracy and Bureaucracy: How their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. DOI:10.1080/01402382.2013.830468
Ferrín, M., & Kriesi, H. (2016). How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Riker, W. H. (1988). Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Prospect Heights : Waveland Press.
Rohrer, J. M., & Schmukle, S. C. (2018). Individual Importance Weighting of Domain Satisfaction Ratings does Not Increase Validity. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 6. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.116
Trauer, T., Mackinnon A. (2001). Why are we weighting? The role of importance ratings in quality of life measurement. Quality of Life Research, 10, 579–585.
Wagner, A., Schneider, F., & Halla, M. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe — A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(1), 30–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.08.001
Wu, C. H. (2008). Can we weight satisfaction score with importance ranks across life domains? Social Indicators Research, 86(3), 469–480. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9180-9