Construct · 5 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningsatisficingcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to satisfaction is satisficing.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A post-purchase judgment formed by comparing what a product delivered against what the buyer expected: performance above expectation produces satisfaction, below it dissatisfaction. Oliver fixed the expectancy–disconfirmation model in 1980, making satisfaction a function of the gap rather than of performance itself. Fornell and colleagues built the American Customer Satisfaction Index on the same logic at national scale, adding a comparison to the ideal and treating satisfaction as a latent variable that predicts complaint and loyalty. The referent is a transaction or a firm, and the standard is what was expected.[1][2]
The sum of a user's feelings toward the factors that make up their experience with an information system, Bailey and Pearson's 1983 definition, operationalized as a 39-factor inventory covering accuracy, timeliness, format, and the relationship with the IS staff. DeLone and McLean then placed user satisfaction in a causal chain from system and information quality through use to net benefits, and it has served ever since as the field's stand-in for success when benefits cannot be measured. It is the dependent variable by default, which is not the same as being the thing that matters.[3][4][5]
A pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences, Locke's 1976 definition, which makes it an attitude with both an evaluative and an affective component. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin split it into facets in the Job Descriptive Index: the work itself, pay, promotion, supervision, and co-workers. Judge and colleagues' meta-analysis put the correlation with performance at about .30 and argued the construct had been undersold. The referent is a job, and the standard is what the person values in a job.[6][7][8]
A cognitive, global judgment of one's life as a whole, made against standards the person sets for themselves. Diener and colleagues built the Satisfaction With Life Scale in 1985 to isolate this judgment from the affective components of subjective wellbeing (positive and negative feeling) that are measured separately. The scale asks about life in general rather than any domain, and the comparison standard is the respondent's own, which is why it does not reduce to income or health.[9]
A patient's evaluation of the care received, decomposed by Ware and colleagues into dimensions such as interpersonal manner, technical quality, accessibility, and cost, and treated as a quality indicator in its own right rather than a proxy for outcomes. Sitzia and Wood's review found the construct undertheorized: most instruments were local, ratings were uniformly high, and it was unclear whether they captured the care or the patient's expectations and disposition. Its use in reimbursement and accreditation gives it a stake no other meaning on this page carries.[10][11]
Next
Combine items across the satisfaction scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct