Toward an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Differences in ... · Cross-Cultural Differences in Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring . Fons J. R. van de Vijver. University of Tilburg,

Toward an Understanding of Toward an Understanding of CrossCross--Cultural Differences in Cultural Differences in

Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring

Fons J. R. van de VijverFons J. R. van de VijverUniversity of Tilburg, the Netherlands, and University of Tilburg, the Netherlands, and

NorthNorth--West University, South AfricaWest University, South Africa

George PloubidisGeorge PloubidisUniversity of Cambridge, UKUniversity of Cambridge, UK

Dianne A. van HemertDianne A. van HemertUniversity of Amsterdam, the NetherlandsUniversity of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

OutlineOutline

Response styles in crossResponse styles in cross--cultural researchcultural research•• UniversalityUniversality•• Poorly understood (not just a nuisance): Poorly understood (not just a nuisance):

What do response styles mean?What do response styles mean?

•• Toward a framework of understanding crossToward a framework of understanding cross--cultural differences in response stylescultural differences in response styles

Secondary analysis data of ISSP dataSecondary analysis data of ISSP dataIntegration: Integration: •• Tentative model of response styles, useful for Tentative model of response styles, useful for

crosscross--cultural researchcultural research

Theoretical OutlineTheoretical Outline

What are the problems?What are the problems?1.1. Do response styles differ Do response styles differ

systematically across cultures? systematically across cultures? DescriptionDescription

2.2. What is their patterning What is their patterning (relationship with individual(relationship with individual-- and and countrycountry--level variables)? level variables)? InterpretationInterpretation

From a design perspective response From a design perspective response styles can be seen as characteristics styles can be seen as characteristics of of •• 1. Respondents1. Respondents

Persons /CulturesPersons /Cultures

•• 2. Instruments2. InstrumentsItems / ConstructsItems / Constructs

•• 3. Interaction of subjects and 3. Interaction of subjects and instrumentsinstruments

Current study: Current study: •• 1 (respondents) and 2 1 (respondents) and 2 (instruments)(instruments)

•• 3 (Interactions) not further studied 3 (Interactions) not further studied here: here:

(a) no cross(a) no cross--cultural datacultural data(b) possibly less important source of (b) possibly less important source of variancevariance

1. 1. Response StylesResponse Styles as Person as Person CharacteristicsCharacteristics: Trick or Trait: Trick or TraitTwo views on the psychological Two views on the psychological meaning of response stylesmeaning of response styles•• “Trick”“Trick”: styles distort the view on the : styles distort the view on the

participant’s reality/real attitudesparticipant’s reality/real attitudes

•• “Trait”“Trait”: styles are personality : styles are personality characteristics (e.g., social desirability is characteristics (e.g., social desirability is part of agreeableness)part of agreeableness)

2. 2. Response StylesResponse Styles as Stimulus as Stimulus CharacteristicsCharacteristics

Sensitivity of domain may be Sensitivity of domain may be important:important:•• More personal/sensitive domains More personal/sensitive domains are more prone to response styles are more prone to response styles (cf. more interviewer effects when (cf. more interviewer effects when dealing with more sensitive topics)dealing with more sensitive topics)

CrossCross--Cultural Studies of Cultural Studies of Acquiescence and Extremity ScoringAcquiescence and Extremity Scoring

Watkins & Cheung (1995) Watkins & Cheung (1995) •• less acquiescence among children in Australia compared less acquiescence among children in Australia compared

to children in China, Nepal, and the Philippines. to children in China, Nepal, and the Philippines.

Grimm & Church (1999) Grimm & Church (1999) •• Philippine students acquiesced more than American Philippine students acquiesced more than American

studentsstudents

SteenkampSteenkamp & Baumgartner (1998) & Baumgartner (1998) •• Greek respondents more acquiescence than British and Greek respondents more acquiescence than British and

Belgian respondents. Belgian respondents.

Baumgartner & Baumgartner & SteenkampSteenkamp (2001)(2001)•• Greek and Portuguese respondents displayed more Greek and Portuguese respondents displayed more

acquiescence than respondents from other EU countries.acquiescence than respondents from other EU countries.

Smith (2004):

Significant correlations between acquiescence indicators at country level across studies:

Acquiescence tendencies are consistent at country-level

Van Van HerkHerk, Poortinga, & , Poortinga, & VerhallenVerhallen, 2004, 2004

Study of acquiescence and extremity Study of acquiescence and extremity scoring scoring •• in six EU countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, in six EU countries (Greece, Italy, Spain,

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) •• marketing surveys (domains: cooking, marketing surveys (domains: cooking,

washing, and personal care)washing, and personal care)

Conclusion:Conclusion:“These two response styles were found to be “These two response styles were found to be more present in the Mediterranean than in more present in the Mediterranean than in Northwestern Europe”Northwestern Europe”

Correlates of Response StylesCorrelates of Response StylesIndividual level:Individual level:•• Acquiescence shows a negative relation with Acquiescence shows a negative relation with

education (McClendon, 1991b; education (McClendon, 1991b; MirowskyMirowsky & & Ross, 1991; Ross, 1991; NarayanNarayan & & KrosnickKrosnick, 1996; , 1996; SchumanSchuman & Presser, 1981; Watson, 1992)& Presser, 1981; Watson, 1992)

Cultural levelCultural level•• Social Desirability negatively related to GNP Social Desirability negatively related to GNP

(Van Hemert et al., 2002), which is highly (Van Hemert et al., 2002), which is highly correlated with educational indicatorscorrelated with educational indicators

•• TriandisTriandis (presentation yesterday): (presentation yesterday): More acquiescence in tighter societies (which demand More acquiescence in tighter societies (which demand more conformity)more conformity)More extreme response styles in simpler societies. More extreme response styles in simpler societies.

Questions/HypothesesQuestions/Hypotheses

Question 1Question 1•• What are the relative sizes of individualWhat are the relative sizes of individual--

and countryand country--level differences in level differences in acquiescence and extremity scoring?acquiescence and extremity scoring?

Hypothesis 1:Hypothesis 1:••Country differences are larger in Country differences are larger in domains with more personal domains with more personal involvementinvolvement

Question 2:Question 2:•• What are correlates of extremity scoring What are correlates of extremity scoring

and acquiescence at individual and and acquiescence at individual and country level?country level?

Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2:••Individual level:Individual level:

Response style indicators are Response style indicators are negatively related to indicators negatively related to indicators of resourcefulness (studied here: of resourcefulness (studied here: socioeconomic status and socioeconomic status and gender)gender)

••Country level:Country level:Country scores on both response Country scores on both response style indicators are negatively style indicators are negatively related to affluencerelated to affluence

Survey 1: Social Inequality (1992)Survey 1: Social Inequality (1992)COUNTRY

2203 9.2 9.2 9.22297 9.6 9.6 18.81094 4.6 4.6 23.41066 4.5 4.5 27.91273 5.3 5.3 33.21027 4.3 4.3 37.51250 5.2 5.2 42.7996 4.2 4.2 46.9

1538 6.4 6.4 53.3749 3.1 3.1 56.4

1101 4.6 4.6 61.11049 4.4 4.4 65.41636 6.8 6.8 72.31198 5.0 5.0 77.31983 8.3 8.3 85.61239 5.2 5.2 90.81004 4.2 4.2 95.01200 5.0 5.0 100.0

23903 100.0 100.0

AUSD-WD-EGBUSAAHINSCSSLOPLBGRUSNZCDNRPTotal

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Questionnaire (In All Surveys)Questionnaire (In All Surveys)

Response scales: Response scales: •• Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree

formatformat

Questionnaire should consist of Questionnaire should consist of both positively and negatively both positively and negatively worded items (not all ISSP data worded items (not all ISSP data could be used)could be used)Mode of administration varied Mode of administration varied across countries: across countries: •• selfself--completing questionnaire or completing questionnaire or faceface--toto--face interviewsface interviews

Questionnaires were not Questionnaires were not developed as (developed as (unifactorialunifactorial) ) psychometric scales; no psychometric scales; no equivalence studied here!equivalence studied here!

Examples of Questions (8 items)Examples of Questions (8 items)

Surveys: (1) Family and gender (1994) Surveys: (1) Family and gender (1994) Country

1779 5.3 5.3 5.32324 6.9 6.9 12.21097 3.3 3.3 15.5984 2.9 2.9 18.4647 1.9 1.9 20.3

1447 4.3 4.3 24.6977 2.9 2.9 27.6

1500 4.5 4.5 32.01018 3.0 3.0 35.0938 2.8 2.8 37.8

1968 5.9 5.9 43.72087 6.2 6.2 49.91272 3.8 3.8 53.71024 3.0 3.0 56.71032 3.1 3.1 59.81597 4.8 4.8 64.61126 3.4 3.4 67.91998 5.9 5.9 73.91047 3.1 3.1 77.01440 4.3 4.3 81.31200 3.6 3.6 84.91287 3.8 3.8 88.71307 3.9 3.9 92.62494 7.4 7.4 100.0

33590 100.0 100.0

AUS - AustraliaD-W - Germany-WestD-E - Germany-EastGB - Great BritainNIRL- Northern IrelandUSA - United StatesA - AustriaH - HungaryI - ItalyIRL - IrelandNL - NetherlandsN - NorwayS - SwedenCZ - Czech RepublicSLO - SloveniaPL - PolandBG - BulgariaRUS - RussiaNZ - New ZealandCDN - CanadaRP - PhilippinesIL - IsraelJ - JapanE - SpainTotal


CumulativePercent

Examples of Questions (U.S.A.; 25 items)Examples of Questions (U.S.A.; 25 items)

Survey 2: Survey 2: Religion Religion (1998)

Country

1310 3.4 3.4 3.41000 2.6 2.6 5.91006 2.6 2.6 8.5804 2.1 2.1 10.6812 2.1 2.1 12.6

1284 3.3 3.3 15.91002 2.6 2.6 18.51000 2.6 2.6 21.11008 2.6 2.6 23.61010 2.6 2.6 26.22020 5.2 5.2 31.41532 3.9 3.9 35.31189 3.0 3.0 38.41224 3.1 3.1 41.51006 2.6 2.6 44.11147 2.9 2.9 47.01102 2.8 2.8 49.81703 4.4 4.4 54.2998 2.6 2.6 56.8974 2.5 2.5 59.3

1200 3.1 3.1 62.31208 3.1 3.1 65.41368 3.5 3.5 68.92488 6.4 6.4 75.31200 3.1 3.1 78.41284 3.3 3.3 81.71133 2.9 2.9 84.61000 2.6 2.6 87.11201 3.1 3.1 90.21503 3.9 3.9 94.11114 2.9 2.9 96.91204 3.1 3.1 100.0

39034 100.0 100.0

AUS-AustraliaD-W-Germany-WestD-E-Germany-EastGB-Great BritainNIRL-Northern IrelandUSA-United StatesA-AustriaH-HungaryI-ItalyIRL-IrelandNL-NetherlandsN-NorwayS-SwedenCZ-Czech RepublicSLO-SloveniaPL-PolandBG-BulgariaRUS-RussiaNZ-New ZealandCDN-CanadaRP-PhilippinesIL-Israel Jews ArabsJ-JapanE-SpainLV-LatviaSK-Slovak RepublicF-FranceCY-CyprusP-PortugalRCH-ChileD-DenmarkCH-SwitzerlandTotal


CumulativePercent

(1998)

Examples of Questions (17 items)Examples of Questions (17 items)

Extremity IndexExtremity IndexExtremity score of a participant:Extremity score of a participant:•• Proportion of items with a score at either Proportion of items with a score at either

extreme (Van extreme (Van HerkHerk et al.: “The relative et al.: “The relative number of scores given on the extreme number of scores given on the extreme categories of a rating scale. We counted the categories of a rating scale. We counted the responses in Categories 1 and 5 on the 5responses in Categories 1 and 5 on the 5--point point rating scales”)rating scales”)

Range: Range: •• from 0 to 1from 0 to 1Interpretation: Interpretation: •• Values close to 0 denote a low incidence and Values close to 0 denote a low incidence and

values close to 1 denote high incidence of values close to 1 denote high incidence of extremity scoringextremity scoring

Acquiescence IndexAcquiescence IndexAcquiescence score of a participant:Acquiescence score of a participant:•• proportion of responses in the two extreme proportion of responses in the two extreme

agreement response categories minus the agreement response categories minus the proportion of responses in the opposite proportion of responses in the opposite extremesextremes

•• So, the number of 1s and 2s minus the So, the number of 1s and 2s minus the number of 4s and 5s, divided by the total number of 4s and 5s, divided by the total number of itemsnumber of items

•• Only bipolar (more or less balanced) scales Only bipolar (more or less balanced) scales usedused

Range: Range: •• from from --1 to 11 to 1Interpretation: Interpretation: •• Values close to Values close to --1: low incidence; values close 1: low incidence; values close

to 1: high incidence to 1: high incidence

IndividualIndividual--Level Background VariablesLevel Background Variables

Gender: Male = 1; Female = 2.Gender: Male = 1; Female = 2.Status:Status:

ResultsResults

1. 1. Relative proportion of individualRelative proportion of individual--and countryand country--level differences to level differences to score variationscore variation

Hypothesis: Hypothesis: •• Country differences are larger in Country differences are larger in

domains with more personal domains with more personal involvement (assumption: family involvement (assumption: family > religion, inequality)> religion, inequality)

Analysis: Analysis: •• DV: response style indicesDV: response style indices•• Variance components model (null Variance components model (null

model, intercept only)model, intercept only)

IntraclassIntraclass CorrelationsCorrelations•• Prop. of variance accounted for by countryProp. of variance accounted for by country•• Cohen’s cutoff values of effects sizes: Cohen’s cutoff values of effects sizes:

••.01 .01 (small), .06 (medium), .10 (large)(small), .06 (medium), .10 (large)

.25

.11

.23

Extremity Scoring

.29.32Family

.09.07Religion

.15.06Social Inequality

MeanAcquiescence

Large effects in most analyses Large effects in most analyses •• Substantial country differences in both Substantial country differences in both

response styles response styles

Larger country differences in Larger country differences in extremity scoring than in extremity scoring than in acquiescenceacquiescenceFirst hypothesis supported:First hypothesis supported:•• Family domain largest effect sizesFamily domain largest effect sizes

ResultsResults

2. Individual2. Individual-- and and CountryCountry--level level correlates of responsecorrelates of response--style style indicatorsindicatorsAnalysis split up in two parts:Analysis split up in two parts:

1.1. Multilevel analysisMultilevel analysisIndividualIndividual--level factors (“Level 1”): level factors (“Level 1”): •• Gender and socioeconomic status (multilevel Gender and socioeconomic status (multilevel

model)model)

Country level (“Level 2”)Country level (“Level 2”)

2.2. CountryCountry--level factors (correlations)level factors (correlations)

1. Role of Individual Factors1. Role of Individual Factors

Design:Design:•• Multilevel model with gender and SES as Multilevel model with gender and SES as

predictors at individual level predictors at individual level •• (country(country--level predictors not used, due level predictors not used, due

to the large number of countryto the large number of country--level level factors studied relative to the number of factors studied relative to the number of countries involved)countries involved)

Design (cont’d)Design (cont’d)

Distinction between fixed and Distinction between fixed and random slopes and interceptsrandom slopes and intercepts•• Regression coefficients fixed Regression coefficients fixed (fixed (fixed

covariates)covariates)Gender (scoring: 1 = female; 2 = male)Gender (scoring: 1 = female; 2 = male)Status (scoring: higher score, higher class)Status (scoring: higher score, higher class)

•• Intercepts random Intercepts random at both levelsat both levelsSignificance indicates that there is random Significance indicates that there is random variation at both individual level and country variation at both individual level and country levellevel

Significance of EffectsSignificance of EffectsInterceptsRegression

coefficient

sign.--Familysign.++Religionsign.--Social inequality

Extremity

sign.--Familysign.--Religionsign.--Social inequality

CountryStatusGenderAcquiescence

ConclusionsConclusions

AcquiescenceAcquiescence……•• shows shows systematic differences systematic differences across individuals and countriesacross individuals and countries

•• is more prevalent is more prevalent among among fefemales males than among malesthan among males

•• is is negatively related to negatively related to socioeconomic statussocioeconomic status

ExtremityExtremity•• shows shows systematic differences across systematic differences across

individuals and countriesindividuals and countries•• is usually stronger among females than is usually stronger among females than

among malesamong males (differential norms for (differential norms for expressiveness)expressiveness)

•• is negatively related to is negatively related to SESSES..•• However,However,

relationship is moderated by domain for relationship is moderated by domain for extremity;extremity;relationship is domain independent for relationship is domain independent for acquiescenceacquiescence

Correlations of StylesCorrelations of Styles

Are both response styles correlated Are both response styles correlated at individual and/or country level?at individual and/or country level?

Correlations at Individual LevelCorrelations at Individual Level

Scores standardized per countryScores standardized per countryCorrelations of both response stylesCorrelations of both response styles•• Family:Family: .00.00•• Religion: Religion: .04* (.04* (NN = 38,945)= 38,945)•• Inequality: Inequality: .08* (.08* (NN = 23,714)= 23,714)

Averaged Correlations of Averaged Correlations of Response Styles at Country LevelResponse Styles at Country Level

.34.34AcquiescenceAcquiescence

.09 (separate).09 (separate)

.21 (averaged).21 (averaged)

.36.36ExtremityExtremity

AcquiescenceAcquiescenceExtremityExtremity

Conclusion: Within-style cross-survey correlations significant, cross-style differences weaker

ConclusionConclusion

Both styles fairly consistent across Both styles fairly consistent across surveys (mean surveys (mean rr of about .35) (Note: of about .35) (Note: found for identical response formats found for identical response formats in surveys dealing with different in surveys dealing with different topics)topics)Styles are weakly correlated (at both Styles are weakly correlated (at both individual and country level)individual and country level)

2. Country2. Country--Level Correlates: Level Correlates: Country Indicators UsedCountry Indicators Used

Purchasing Power ParityPurchasing Power Parity•• This measure reflects This measure reflects countries' price countries' price

level of a fixed basket of goods and level of a fixed basket of goods and servicesservices in international dollars (World in international dollars (World Bank, 1999)Bank, 1999)

Country Indicators Used (Cont’d)Country Indicators Used (Cont’d)

Educational SystemEducational System•• GeorgasGeorgas and Berry (1995) combined the and Berry (1995) combined the

teacherteacher——pupil ratio in the first level, the pupil ratio in the first level, the gross enrolment in the first, the second gross enrolment in the first, the second and the third level, and the percentage and the third level, and the percentage of adult illiterates. The factor scores of adult illiterates. The factor scores indicate educational systemindicate educational system


Ecological FactorEcological Factor•• GeorgasGeorgas and Berry (1995) combined and Berry (1995) combined

three ecological indicators to establish three ecological indicators to establish an ecological factor: highest and lowest an ecological factor: highest and lowest average temperature and highest average temperature and highest monthly level of precipitation. Factor monthly level of precipitation. Factor scores of this factor were used.scores of this factor were used.

Country Indicators Used (Cont’d)Country Indicators Used (Cont’d)Political Rights and DemocracyPolitical Rights and Democracy•• Combination of:Combination of:

Humana (1986) collected data from several United Nations Humana (1986) collected data from several United Nations instruments and constructed the instruments and constructed the Human Rights IndexHuman Rights Index for for rights and freedoms in 40 categoriesrights and freedoms in 40 categoriesThe indices for The indices for Political RightsPolitical Rights in the year 1984 and 1985 in the year 1984 and 1985 from the Freedom House from the Freedom House Civil LibertiesCivil Liberties were taken (same source)were taken (same source)Inglehart’sInglehart’s (1997) measure of the (1997) measure of the level of democracylevel of democracy in in 19901990Inglehart’sInglehart’s (1997) measure of the (1997) measure of the Stability of democracyStability of democracy(expressed in number of years of continuous democracy) (expressed in number of years of continuous democracy)

•• In each dataset, we factor analyzed all five variables. In each dataset, we factor analyzed all five variables. OneOne--factor solutions were found in all three sets, with factor solutions were found in all three sets, with eigenvalueseigenvalues from 4.56 to 4.77, explaining 91.18% to from 4.56 to 4.77, explaining 91.18% to 95.40% of variance. Factor scores on this Political Rights 95.40% of variance. Factor scores on this Political Rights and Democracy factor were used for further analyses.and Democracy factor were used for further analyses.


Religious DenominationReligious Denomination•• The The Percentage of Protestants,Percentage of Protestants, taken from the taken from the

GeorgasGeorgas and Berry (1995) databaseand Berry (1995) database


Subjective WellSubjective Well--BeingBeing•• Diener’sDiener’s subjective wellsubjective well--being was derived being was derived

fromfrom DienerDiener,, DienerDiener, and, and DienerDiener (1995)(1995)•• Inglehart’sInglehart’s (1997) measure of subjective well(1997) measure of subjective well--

being was derived from questions concerning being was derived from questions concerning happiness and satisfaction with life as a whole happiness and satisfaction with life as a whole (World Values Survey)(World Values Survey)

•• Diener’sDiener’s measure andmeasure and Inglehart’sInglehart’s measure measure were factor analyzed (were factor analyzed (eigenvalueseigenvalues 1.67 to 1.67 to 1.73, explained variance 83.34% to 86.55%) 1.73, explained variance 83.34% to 86.55%) and factor scores were used forand factor scores were used for futherfutheranalysesanalyses


Hofstede’sHofstede’s MeasuresMeasures (1980, (1980, 20012001) ) IndividualismIndividualism (IDV)(IDV)Power DistancePower Distance (PDI)(PDI)Uncertainty AvoidanceUncertainty Avoidance (UAI)(UAI)MasculinityMasculinity (MAS)(MAS)Long Term OrientationLong Term Orientation (LTO)(LTO)


Social DesirabilitySocial Desirability•• MMeanseans on the Lie Scale of the on the Lie Scale of the EysenckEysenck

Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; EysenckEysenck & & EysenckEysenck, 1975) collected , 1975) collected across 38 countries were taken from across 38 countries were taken from Van Hemert, Van de Vijver, Poortinga, Van Hemert, Van de Vijver, Poortinga, and Georgas (2002)and Georgas (2002)


Big Five Personality TraitsBig Five Personality Traits•• McCraeMcCrae (2002): (2002):

NeuroticismNeuroticismExtraversionExtraversionOpenness to experienceOpenness to experienceAgreeablenessAgreeablenessConscientiousnessConscientiousness

Overall: ExtremityOverall: ExtremityLarge effect size and positiveLarge effect size and positive•• LTOLTO

Medium size and positiveMedium size and positive•• UAI, Neuroticism, Social DesirabilityUAI, Neuroticism, Social Desirability

No effect (No effect (--.15 < .15 < rr < .15)< .15)•• Ecology, PDI, Purchasing Power Parity, Ecology, PDI, Purchasing Power Parity,

Openness to experience, EducationOpenness to experience, Education

Small size and negativeSmall size and negative•• Democracy, Extraversion, IDVDemocracy, Extraversion, IDV

Medium size and negativeMedium size and negative•• Subjective wellSubjective well--being, Percentage Protestants, being, Percentage Protestants,

Agreeableness, ConscientiousnessAgreeableness, Conscientiousness

Overall: AcquiescenceOverall: AcquiescenceMedium size and positiveMedium size and positive•• Social Desirability, Neuroticism, UAI, PDISocial Desirability, Neuroticism, UAI, PDI

Small effect size and positiveSmall effect size and positive•• EcologyEcology

No effect (No effect (--.15 < .15 < rr < .15)< .15)•• MAS, LTO, Conscientiousness, Openness to MAS, LTO, Conscientiousness, Openness to

experience, Percentage Protestantsexperience, Percentage Protestants

Small size and negativeSmall size and negative•• Agreeableness, ExtraversionAgreeableness, Extraversion

Medium size and negativeMedium size and negative•• Education, Democracy, Subjective wellEducation, Democracy, Subjective well--being, being,

Purchasing Power Parity 1997, IDVPurchasing Power Parity 1997, IDV

Extremity and Acquiescence: Extremity and Acquiescence: Their SimilaritiesTheir Similarities

Both are more triggered in personal Both are more triggered in personal domains (sensitivity to norms)domains (sensitivity to norms)Size of correlations with countrySize of correlations with country--level level indicators is similar for both (average indicators is similar for both (average absolute correlations with country absolute correlations with country indicators .33 and .29, respectively)indicators .33 and .29, respectively)

Strongest relationships were found for Social Strongest relationships were found for Social Desirability and LongDesirability and Long--Term Orientation (East Term Orientation (East Asia against the rest of the world Asia against the rest of the world well known well known response style to avoid extremes among East response style to avoid extremes among East Asians). So, LTO also seems to be related to a Asians). So, LTO also seems to be related to a response style response style response styles are response styles are interrelated. interrelated. •• At country level social desirability, average At country level social desirability, average

extremity and average acquiescence constitute extremity and average acquiescence constitute a single factor, explaining 64% of the variancea single factor, explaining 64% of the variance

Extremity and Acquiescence: Extremity and Acquiescence: Their DifferencesTheir Differences

Correlations point to a somewhat different Correlations point to a somewhat different meaning of these response styles:meaning of these response styles:•• Extremity is more related to personality Extremity is more related to personality

and norms about the expression of and norms about the expression of emotions (negatively related to “feeling emotions (negatively related to “feeling good” factor/ expression of positive good” factor/ expression of positive emotions)emotions)

•• Acquiescence is more related to affluence Acquiescence is more related to affluence (which is more related to conformity, Bond (which is more related to conformity, Bond & Smith, 1996)& Smith, 1996)

Second hypothesis (resourcefulness negative Second hypothesis (resourcefulness negative predictor of response styles) only supported for predictor of response styles) only supported for acquiescenceacquiescence

Toward an Understanding of Toward an Understanding of CrossCross--Cultural Differences in Cultural Differences in

Response StylesResponse StylesModel should involve Model should involve Acquiescence, Extremity Acquiescence, Extremity Scoring, and Social Scoring, and Social Desirability (Johnson & Van Desirability (Johnson & Van de Vijver, 2003; Van de Vijver, 2003; Van Hemert Hemert et al., 2002)et al., 2002)Model should integrate theseModel should integrate these

What is the patterning of the What is the patterning of the crosscross--cultural differences?cultural differences?

•• Extremity negatively related to Extremity negatively related to “feeling good”“feeling good”

•• Acquiescence negatively related Acquiescence negatively related to affluenceto affluence

•• Comparison of relations with Van Comparison of relations with Van Hemert Hemert et al. (2002):et al. (2002):

Correlations with country indicators Correlations with country indicators are largely identical for acquiescence are largely identical for acquiescence and social desirabilityand social desirability

The Argument in a Nutshell….The Argument in a Nutshell….Response styles Response styles •• are communication habits (selfare communication habits (self--

presentation management) which work presentation management) which work like lenses like lenses traitstraits

•• can distort the view on participants’ real can distort the view on participants’ real attitudes and behaviors attitudes and behaviors trickstricks

•• are fairly consistent across survey topicsare fairly consistent across survey topics•• are more prevalent in sensitive domainsare more prevalent in sensitive domains•• share a core with other response styles, share a core with other response styles,

but also have unique features: but also have unique features: Extremity has slightly different countryExtremity has slightly different country--level level correlates than have acquiescence and correlates than have acquiescence and social desirabilitysocial desirability

Acquiescence

Social Desirability

Extremity

Distortion

Specific norms about conformity

Norms about expressing negative/ positive aspects

Resourcefulness/ independence

Specific norms about deference

Other expressiveness

norms

Norms about expressing

endorsement of relevant norms

•Distortion as “trick”, other aspects as “trait”•Distortion as the intersection•Communication habits and self-management as the union

ImplicationsImplicationsFalse dichotomy between substance False dichotomy between substance and style/trait and trick and style/trait and trick Response styles……Response styles……•• tend to reinforce each othertend to reinforce each other•• tend to systematically affect score tend to systematically affect score

comparisons (both overestimation and comparisons (both overestimation and underestimation possible) underestimation possible)

prevalence of Eastprevalence of East——West twoWest two--country country comparisons in crosscomparisons in cross--cultural researchcultural research

•• should be taken into account more often should be taken into account more often in crossin cross--cultural testing in at least two cultural testing in at least two ways:ways:

1.1. Their impact on results (and implied bias Their impact on results (and implied bias toward or against the hypothesis of interest) toward or against the hypothesis of interest) should be acknowledged, should be acknowledged, both as trick and both as trick and traittrait

Response styles do not necessarily “explain Response styles do not necessarily “explain away” substantive resultsaway” substantive results

2.2. Their impact should be measured more Their impact should be measured more often (measures of perceived norms may be often (measures of perceived norms may be relevant)relevant)

Correlations of Extremity with Correlations of Extremity with CorrelatesCorrelates

*-.20.24*-.66Democracy

*-.51-.11**-.77% Christians

-.19.31-.07Education

-.14.02-.27Ecology

-.14.28*-.50Purchasing power

FamilyReligionSocial

Inequality


.46-.02.29MAS

**.84**.71.52LTO

-.35.06-.18IDV

.41-.02**.76UAI

-.16-.19-.19PDI


InequalityHofstedeHofstede


-.51-.15-.25Conscientiousness

*-.59-.15*-.66Happiness

-.50.10**-.63Agreeableness

.20.42*.62Social desirability

.30-.27-.00Openness

-.20.09-.40Extraversion

*.38-.01.57Neuroticism


Inequality

Correlations of Acquiescence with Correlations of Acquiescence with CorrelatesCorrelates

**-.77-.37-.03Democracy

-.25.31-.07% Christians

**-.49**-.48-.10Education

.09.12.37Ecology

**-.78-.47-.16Purchasing power


inequality


.24-.07.14MAS

.05-.24.07LTO

****-.88****-.62.02IDV

*.56.40.20UAI

.44.34.14PDI


inequalityHofstedeHofstede


-.01.27.05Conscientiousness

**-.79-.33-.05Happiness

-.52-.19.10Agreeableness

.41.36.47Social desirability

.08.02.14Openness

-.37-.18-.45Extraversion

.48.38.17Neuroticism


inequality

Countries Ranked from Low to High Scores on Countries Ranked from Low to High Scores on Both Response SetsBoth Response Sets

Low on Both Low on Extr., High on Acq.

RCH-Chile CY-Cyprus F-France IRL-Ireland RP-Philippines PL-Poland CH-Switzerland SLO-Slovenia LV-Latvia

AUS-Australia NL-Netherlands NZ-New Zealand N-Norway E-Spain GB-Great Britain USA-United States

High on Extr., Low on Acq. High on Both A-Austria BG-Bulgaria D-W-Germany-West I-Italy P-Portugal SK-Slovak Republic

CDN-Canada CZ-Czech Republic D-Denmark H-Hungary IL-Israel Jews ArabsJ-Japan S-Sweden RUS-Russia D-E-Germany-East

Documents

Toward an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Differences in ... · Cross-Cultural Differences in Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring . Fons J. R. van de Vijver. University of Tilburg,