Toward an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Cultural Differences in Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring

Transcription

1 Toward an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Cultural Differences in Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring Fons J. R. van de Vijver University of Tilburg, the Netherlands, and North-West University, South Africa George Ploubidis University of Cambridge, UK Dianne A. van Hemert University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2 Outline Response styles in cross-cultural cultural research Universality Poorly understood (not just a nuisance): What do response styles mean? Toward a framework of understanding cross- cultural differences in response styles Secondary analysis data of ISSP data Integration: Tentative model of response styles, useful for cross-cultural cultural research

3 Theoretical Outline What are the problems? 1. Do response styles differ systematically across cultures? Description 2. What is their patterning (relationship with individual- and country-level variables)? Interpretation

4 From a design perspective response styles can be seen as characteristics of 1. Respondents Persons /Cultures 2. Instruments Items / Constructs 3. Interaction of subjects and instruments

5 Current study: 1 (respondents) and 2 (instruments) 3 (Interactions) not further studied here: (a) no cross-cultural cultural data (b) possibly less important source of variance

6 1. Response Styles as Person Characteristics: : Trick or Trait Two views on the psychological meaning of response styles Trick Trick :: styles distort the view on the participant s reality/real attitudes Trait Trait :: styles are personality characteristics (e.g., social desirability is part of agreeableness)

7 2. Response Styles as Stimulus Characteristics Sensitivity of domain may be important: More personal/sensitive domains are more prone to response styles (cf. more interviewer effects when dealing with more sensitive topics)

8 Cross-Cultural Cultural Studies of Acquiescence and Extremity Scoring Watkins & Cheung (1995) less acquiescence among children in Australia compared to children in China, Nepal, and the Philippines. Grimm & Church (1999) Philippine students acquiesced more than American students Steenkamp & Baumgartner (1998) Greek respondents more acquiescence than British and Belgian respondents. Baumgartner & Steenkamp (2001) Greek and Portuguese respondents displayed more acquiescence than respondents from other EU countries.

9 Acquiescence tendencies are consistent at country-level Smith (2004): Significant correlations between acquiescence indicators at country level across studies:

10 Van Herk,, Poortinga, & Verhallen,, 2004 Study of acquiescence and extremity scoring in six EU countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) marketing surveys (domains: cooking, washing, and personal care) Conclusion: These two response styles were found to be more present in the Mediterranean than in Northwestern Europe

11 Correlates of Response Styles Individual level: Acquiescence shows a negative relation with education (McClendon, 1991b; Mirowsky & Ross, 1991; Narayan & Krosnick,, 1996; Schuman & Presser, 1981; Watson, 1992) Cultural level Social Desirability negatively related to GNP (Van Hemert et al., 2002), which is highly correlated with educational indicators Triandis (presentation yesterday): More acquiescence in tighter societies (which demand more conformity) More extreme response styles in simpler societies.

12 Questions/Hypotheses Question 1 What are the relative sizes of individual- and country-level differences in acquiescence and extremity scoring? Hypothesis 1: Country differences are larger in domains with more personal involvement

13 Question 2: What are correlates of extremity scoring and acquiescence at individual and country level? Hypothesis 2: Individual level: Response style indicators are negatively related to indicators of resourcefulness (studied here: socioeconomic status and gender) Country level: Country scores on both response style indicators are negatively related to affluence

14

15 Survey 1: Social Inequality (1992) COUNTRY Valid AUS D-W D-E GB USA A H I N S CS SLO PL BG RUS NZ CDN RP Total Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

16 Questionnaire (In All Surveys) Response scales: Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree format

17 Questionnaire should consist of both positively and negatively worded items (not all ISSP data could be used) Mode of administration varied across countries: self-completing questionnaire or face-to to-face interviews Questionnaires were not developed as (unifactorial( unifactorial) psychometric scales; no equivalence studied here!

18 Examples of Questions (8 items)

19

20 Surveys: (1) Family and gender (1994) Country Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent AUS - Australia D-W - Germany-West D-E - Germany-East GB - Great Britain NIRL- Northern Ireland USA - United States A - Austria H - Hungary I - Italy IRL - Ireland NL - Netherlands N - Norway S - Sweden CZ - Czech Republic SLO - Slovenia PL - Poland BG - Bulgaria RUS - Russia NZ - New Zealand CDN - Canada RP - Philippines IL - Israel J - Japan E - Spain Total

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

22

23 Survey 2: Religion (1998) Valid Country Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent AUS-Australia D-W-Germany-West D-E-Germany-East GB-Great Britain NIRL-Northern Ireland USA-United States A-Austria H-Hungary I-Italy IRL-Ireland NL-Netherlands N-Norway S-Sweden CZ-Czech Republic SLO-Slovenia PL-Poland BG-Bulgaria RUS-Russia NZ-New Zealand CDN-Canada RP-Philippines IL-Israel Jews Arabs J-Japan E-Spain LV-Latvia SK-Slovak Republic F-France CY-Cyprus P-Portugal RCH-Chile D-Denmark CH-Switzerland Total

24 Examples of Questions (17 items)

25 Extremity Index Extremity score of a participant: Proportion of items with a score at either extreme (Van Herk et al.: The relative number of scores given on the extreme categories of a rating scale. We counted the responses in Categories 1 and 5 on the 5-point 5 rating scales ) Range: from 0 to 1 Interpretation: Values close to 0 denote a low incidence and values close to 1 denote high incidence of extremity scoring

26 Acquiescence Index Acquiescence score of a participant: proportion of responses in the two extreme agreement response categories minus the proportion of responses in the opposite extremes So, the number of 1s and 2s minus the number of 4s and 5s, divided by the total number of items Only bipolar (more or less balanced) scales used Range: from -11 to 1 Interpretation: Values close to -1: low incidence; values close to 1: high incidence

27 Individual-Level Background Variables Gender: Male = 1; Female = 2. Status:

28 Results 1. Relative proportion of individual- and country-level differences to score variation

29 Hypothesis: Country differences are larger in domains with more personal involvement (assumption: family > religion, inequality) Analysis: DV: response style indices Variance components model (null model, intercept only)

30 Intraclass Correlations Prop. of variance accounted for by country Cohen s cutoff values of effects sizes:.01 (small),.06 (medium),.10 (large) Acquiescence Extremity Scoring Mean Social Inequality Religion Family

31 Large effects in most analyses Substantial country differences in both response styles Larger country differences in extremity scoring than in acquiescence First hypothesis supported: Family domain largest effect sizes

32 Results 2. Individual- and Country-level correlates of response-style style indicators Analysis split up in two parts: 1. Multilevel analysis Individual-level level factors ( Level 1 ): Gender and socioeconomic status (multilevel model) Country level ( Level 2 ) 2. Country-level factors (correlations)

33 1. Role of Individual Factors Design: Multilevel model with gender and SES as predictors at individual level (country-level predictors not used, due to the large number of country-level factors studied relative to the number of countries involved)

34 Design (cont d) Distinction between fixed and random slopes and intercepts Regression coefficients fixed (fixed covariates) Gender (scoring: 1 = female; 2 = male) Status (scoring: higher score, higher class) Intercepts random at both levels Significance indicates that there is random variation at both individual level and country level

35 Significance of Effects Regression coefficient Intercepts Acquiescence Gender Status Country Social inequality - - sign. Religion - - sign. Family - - sign. Extremity Social inequality - - sign. Religion + + sign. Family - - sign.

36 Conclusions Acquiescence shows systematic differences across individuals and countries is more prevalent among females than among males is negatively related to socioeconomic status

37 Extremity shows systematic differences across individuals and countries is usually stronger among females than among males (differential norms for expressiveness) is negatively related to SES. However, relationship is moderated by domain for extremity; relationship is domain independent for acquiescence

38 Correlations of Styles Are both response styles correlated at individual and/or country level?

39 Correlations at Individual Level Scores standardized per country Correlations of both response styles Family:.00 Religion:.04* (N( = 38,945) Inequality:.08* (N( = 23,714)

40 Averaged Correlations of Response Styles at Country Level Extremity Acquiescence Extremity Acquiescence (separate).21 (averaged).34 Conclusion: Within-style cross-survey correlations significant, cross-style differences weaker

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

42 2. Country-Level Correlates: Country Indicators Used Purchasing Power Parity This measure reflects countries' price level of a fixed basket of goods and services in international dollars (World Bank, 1999)

43 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Educational System Georgas and Berry (1995) combined the teacher pupil ratio in the first level, the gross enrolment in the first, the second and the third level, and the percentage of adult illiterates. The factor scores indicate educational system

44 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Ecological Factor Georgas and Berry (1995) combined three ecological indicators to establish an ecological factor: highest and lowest average temperature and highest monthly level of precipitation. Factor scores of this factor were used.

45 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Political Rights and Democracy Combination of: Humana (1986) collected data from several United Nations instruments and constructed the Human Rights Index for rights and freedoms in 40 categories The indices for Political Rights in the year 1984 and 1985 from the Freedom House Civil Liberties were taken (same source) Inglehart s (1997) measure of the level of democracy in 1990 Inglehart s (1997) measure of the Stability of democracy (expressed in number of years of continuous democracy) In each dataset, we factor analyzed all five variables. One-factor solutions were found in all three sets, with eigenvalues from 4.56 to 4.77, explaining 91.18% to 95.40% of variance. Factor scores on this Political Rights and Democracy factor were used for further analyses.

46 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Religious Denomination The Percentage of Protestants, taken from the Georgas and Berry (1995) database

47 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Subjective Well-Being Diener s subjective well-being was derived from Diener, Diener,, and Diener (1995) Inglehart s (1997) measure of subjective well- being was derived from questions concerning happiness and satisfaction with life as a whole (World Values Survey) Diener s measure and Inglehart s measure were factor analyzed (eigenvalues( 1.67 to 1.73, explained variance 83.34% to 86.55%) and factor scores were used for futher analyses

48 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Hofstede s Measures (1980, 2001) Individualism (IDV) Power Distance (PDI) Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) Masculinity (MAS) Long Term Orientation (LTO)

49 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Social Desirability Means on the Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck,, 1975) collected across 38 countries were taken from Van Hemert, Van de Vijver, Poortinga, and Georgas (2002)

50 Country Indicators Used (Cont d) Big Five Personality Traits McCrae (2002): Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness

51 Overall: Extremity Large effect size and positive LTO Medium size and positive Medium size and positive UAI, Neuroticism, Social Desirability No effect (-.15( < r <.15) Ecology, PDI, Purchasing Power Parity, Openness to experience, Education Small size and negative Democracy, Extraversion, IDV Medium size and negative Subjective well-being, Percentage Protestants, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness

52 Overall: Acquiescence Medium size and positive Social Desirability, Neuroticism, UAI, PDI Small effect size and positive Ecology No effect (-.15( < r <.15) MAS, LTO, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience, Percentage Protestants Small size and negative Agreeableness, Extraversion Medium size and negative Education, Democracy, Subjective well-being, Purchasing Power Parity 1997, IDV

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

54 Strongest relationships were found for Social Desirability and Long-Term Orientation (East Asia against the rest of the world well known response style to avoid extremes among East Asians). So, LTO also seems to be related to a response style response styles are interrelated. At country level social desirability, average extremity and average acquiescence constitute a single factor, explaining 64% of the variance

55 Extremity and Acquiescence: Their Differences Correlations point to a somewhat different meaning of these response styles: Extremity is more related to personality and norms about the expression of emotions (negatively related to feeling good factor/ expression of positive emotions) Acquiescence is more related to affluence (which is more related to conformity, Bond & Smith, 1996) Second hypothesis (resourcefulness negative predictor of response styles) only supported for acquiescence

56 Toward an Understanding of Cross-Cultural Cultural Differences in Response Styles Model should involve Acquiescence, Extremity Scoring, and Social Desirability (Johnson & Van de Vijver, 2003; Van Hemert et al., 2002) Model should integrate these

57 What is the patterning of the cross-cultural cultural differences? Extremity negatively related to feeling good Acquiescence negatively related to affluence Comparison of relations with Van Hemert et al. (2002): Correlations with country indicators are largely identical for acquiescence and social desirability

58 The Argument in a Nutshell. Response styles are communication habits (self- presentation management) which work like lenses traits can distort the view on participants real attitudes and behaviors tricks are fairly consistent across survey topics are more prevalent in sensitive domains share a core with other response styles, but also have unique features: Extremity has slightly different country-level correlates than have acquiescence and social desirability

59 Distortion as trick, other aspects as trait Distortion as the intersection Communication habits and self-management as the union Acquiescence Specific norms about deference Other expressiveness norms Norms about expressing negative/ positive aspects Extremity Resourcefulness/ independence Distortion Norms about expressing endorsement of relevant norms Specific norms about conformity Social Desirability

60 Implications False dichotomy between substance and style/trait and trick Response styles tend to reinforce each other tend to systematically affect score comparisons (both overestimation and underestimation possible) prevalence of East West two-country comparisons in cross-cultural cultural research

61 should be taken into account more often in cross-cultural cultural testing in at least two ways: 1. Their impact on results (and implied bias toward or against the hypothesis of interest) should be acknowledged, both as trick and trait Response styles do not necessarily explain away substantive results 2. Their impact should be measured more often (measures of perceived norms may be relevant)

62 Correlations of Extremity with Purchasing power Correlates Social Inequality -.50 * Religion.28 Family -.14 Ecology Education Democracy -.66 * * % Christians -.77 ** *

63 LTO *.84 ** Correlations of Extremity with Hofstede Correlates Social Inequality Religion Family PDI UAI.76 ** IDV MAS

64 Correlations of Extremity with Correlates Social Inequality Religion Family Neuroticism * Extraversion Openness Agreeableness -.63 * Conscientiousness Happiness -.66 * * Social desirability.62 *.42.20

65 % Christians Correlations of Acquiescence with Purchasing power Correlates Social inequality -.16 Religion -.47 Family -.78 ** Ecology Education * -.49 * Democracy **

66 LTO Correlations of Acquiescence with Hofstede Correlates Social inequality Religion Family PDI UAI * IDV ** -.88 ** MAS

67 Correlations of Acquiescence with Correlates Social inequality Religion Family Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Happiness ** Social desirability

68 Countries Ranked from Low to High Scores on Both Response Sets Low on Both Low on Extr., High on Acq. AUS-Australia NL-Netherlands NZ-New Zealand N-Norway E-Spain GB-Great Britain USA-United States RCH-Chile CY-Cyprus F-France IRL-Ireland RP-Philippines PL-Poland CH-Switzerland SLO-Slovenia LV-Latvia High on Extr., Low on Acq. High on Both A-Austria CDN-Canada BG-Bulgaria CZ-Czech Republic D-W-Germany-West D-Denmark I-Italy H-Hungary P-Portugal IL-Israel Jews Arabs SK-Slovak Republic J-Japan S-Sweden RUS-Russia D-E-Germany-East