Individual and culture-level components of survey response styles: A multi-level analysis using cultural models of selfhood.

Autor: Smith PB; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Vignoles VL; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Becker M; CLLE, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France., Owe E; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Easterbrook MJ; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Brown R; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Bourguignon D; Equipe PErSEUs (EA 7312), Paul-Verlaine University, Metz, France., Garðarsdóttir RB; Department of Psychology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland., Kreuzbauer R; Department of Marketing and International Business and Institute on Asian Consumer Insight, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore., Cendales Ayala B; Department of Psychology, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia., Yuki M; Behavioral Science/Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan., Zhang J; Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China., Lv S; Department of Psychology, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China., Chobthamkit P; Division of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Library Science, and Geography, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand., Jaafar JL; Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia., Fischer R; Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand., Milfont TL; Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand., Gavreliuc A; Department of Psychology, West University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania., Baguma P; Department of Educational, Social and Organizational Psychology, School of Psychology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda., Bond MH; Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong., Martin M; Department of Human Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia., Gausel N; Department of Psychosocial Health, University of Agder, Norway., Schwartz SJ; Epidemiology and Public Health, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA., Des Rosiers SE; Department of Psychology, Barry University, Miami, FL, USA., Tatarko A; Department of Psychology, Higher School of Economics, National Research University, Moscow, Russia., González R; School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile., Didier N; School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile., Carrasco D; School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile., Lay S; School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile., Nizharadze G; Department of Social Sciences, Free University of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia., Torres A; Department of Psychology, Federal University of Paraíba, Joao Pessoa, Brazil., Camino L; Department of Psychology, Federal University of Paraíba, Joao Pessoa, Brazil., Abuhamdeh S; Department of Psychology, Istanbul Şehir University, Istanbul, Turkey., Macapagal ME; Department of Psychology, Ateneo de Manila University, Manila, Philippines., Koller SH; Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil., Herman G; Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium., Courtois M; Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium., Fritsche I; Institute of Psychology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany., Espinosa A; Department of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru., Villamar JA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA., Regalia C; Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy., Manzi C; Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy., Brambilla M; Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy., Zinkeng M; Department of Guidance and Counseling, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon., Jalal B; Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Kusdil E; Department of Psychology, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey., Amponsah B; University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana., Çağlar S; Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey., Mekonnen KH; School of Psychology, University of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia., Möller B; Institute of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany., Zhang X; Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan., Schweiger Gallo I; Departamento de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Prieto Gil P; Departamento de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Lorente Clemares R; Departamento de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Campara G; Departamento de Psicología Social, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain., Aldhafri S; Department of Psychology, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman., Fülöp M; Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary., Pyszczynski T; Department of Psychology, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, CO, USA., Kesebir P; Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA., Harb C; Department of Psychology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie [Int J Psychol] 2016 Dec; Vol. 51 (6), pp. 453-463. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Jul 04.
DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12293
Abstrakt: Variations in acquiescence and extremity pose substantial threats to the validity of cross-cultural research that relies on survey methods. Individual and cultural correlates of response styles when using 2 contrasting types of response mode were investigated, drawing on data from 55 cultural groups across 33 nations. Using 7 dimensions of self-other relatedness that have often been confounded within the broader distinction between independence and interdependence, our analysis yields more specific understandings of both individual- and culture-level variations in response style. When using a Likert-scale response format, acquiescence is strongest among individuals seeing themselves as similar to others, and where cultural models of selfhood favour harmony, similarity with others and receptiveness to influence. However, when using Schwartz's (2007) portrait-comparison response procedure, acquiescence is strongest among individuals seeing themselves as self-reliant but also connected to others, and where cultural models of selfhood favour self-reliance and self-consistency. Extreme responding varies less between the two types of response modes, and is most prevalent among individuals seeing themselves as self-reliant, and in cultures favouring self-reliance. As both types of response mode elicit distinctive styles of response, it remains important to estimate and control for style effects to ensure valid comparisons.
(© 2016 International Union of Psychological Science.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje