The nature of importance perceptions: A test of a cognitive model

Top-down or bottom-up? The reciprocal longitudinal relationship between athletes’ team satisfaction and life satisfaction.

“…The scope is the extent to which the domain encompasses one or a few persons and activities (e.g., athletes’ teammate). The centrality means the extent to which the domain is persistently in the forefront of the individual’s consciousness (Cragin, 1983, p. 265). It is suggested that facets of life satisfaction that are narrower in scope and centrality are more likely to contribute to overall life satisfaction.…”

A Comparison Between Bottom–Up, Top–Down, and Bidirectional Models of Relationships Between Global and Life Facet Satisfaction

“…Pnor literature on relationships between global and hfe facet satisfaction has either assumed that spillover, compensatory, or segmentalist relations exist between life facet satisfactions (Kabanoff, 1980), that causal processes proceed/rom life facet satisfactions to satisfaction with life m general (e g , Andrews & Withey, 1974, Near et al , 1983, Rice et al , 1985, or that global predispositions toward satisfaction with hfe in general determine satisfaction in various spheres of life (e g , Costa & McCrae, 1980, Liang & Bollen, 1983 The present study suggests all of these rationales may be simplistic accounts of relationships between life facet satisfactions and satisfaction with life in general Causal influences appear to be multidirectional and consistent with a reciprocal person-situation interactional perspective (Bandura, 1978, Epstein & O'Brien, 1985, Schneider, 1983 on determinants of satisfaction Relationships between life facet satisfactions may be indirect, such as the effect of marital satisfaction on satisfaction with social activities that is mediated by overall life satisfaction, or they may result from common causal effects of overall life satisfaction, such as the relationship between job satisfaction and satisfaction with social activities (Figure 3) Furthermore, the direction of the relationship between global and life facet satisfaction may vary as a function of life domain The directions of these relationships may vary with the scope, cnticality, and centrahty of the domain Bharadwaj and Wilkening (1977) argued that the importance of various life domains is determined by the scope of the domain, and its "centrahty in the life expenence of the individual" (p 425, my emphasis, see also Campbell et al , 1976) Domain scope may be defined m terms of the extent to which the domain encompasses only one or a few persons, entities, or activities (e g , one's spouse or income level) versus many (e g , one's spare-time activities or neighborhood) Cragin's (1983) mdepth analysis of importance perceptions also suggests that domain importance IS a function of its criticalness (the extent to which substitutes are not readily available), its centrahty (the extent to which the domain IS "persistently in the forefront of the individual's consciousness" [p 265]), and its temporary salience, such that even a life domain "of generally low cognitive prominence may become temporanly salient when the immediate circumstances draw one's attention to it forcefully and explicitly" (p 265)…”

The Structure of the Meaning of Work: A Relative Stability Amidst Change

“…This domain covers the extent that people evaluate and identify working in terms of various roles and their functions. It has been influenced by Cragin's (1983) research on the nature of important perceptions. Role theory (Turner, 1956) and attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) provided the conceptual rationale for development of work role identification notions.…”