Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on the development and testing of involvement and attachment constructs, which are then used to investigate the effects of involvement and attachment on perceptions of satisfaction with services delivered to residents by a local government body.
Design/methodology/approach – Data collected by means of a questionnaire-based survey of residents' satisfaction with local government services were used to test involvement and attachment constructs for validity and reliability. The relationship between these two constructs and satisfaction was then evaluated.
Findings – The findings in this paper indicated that the levels of involvement and attachment felt by residents did have both a direct and a combinatorial effect on perceptions of satisfaction with local government services. The larger attachment influence was positively associated with satisfaction, while involvement showed a weak negative association with satisfaction. A significant interaction effect also existed.
Research limitations/implications – The paper shows that, on average, residents with greater levels of attachment were more satisfied with local government service provision but those with more involvement were less satisfied.
Practical implications – The paper shows that, when they aim to improve perceptions of satisfaction with their service delivery, local government service providers need to address involvement and attachment effects.
Originality/value – The paper has developed valid and reliable constructs that can be used to measure the effect of residents' levels of community involvement and attachment on their satisfaction with local government service provision. It has also identified an unexpected negative association between involvement and satisfaction. The newly developed constructs provide psychometrically sound measures for use in local government research.
Scott, D & Vitartas, P 2008, 'The role of involvement and attachment in satisfaction with local government services', The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 45-57.
Publisher's version of this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513550810846104