Is extreme response style domain specific? Findings from two studies in four countries

Baumgartner, H., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M.: Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J. Mark. Res. 38, 143–156 (2001). doi: 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840

Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G.: Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, 2nd edn. Sage, London (1999)

Bruner II, G.C., Hensel, P.J., James, K.E.: Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-item Measures for Consumer Behavior and Advertising Research, vol. 4. American Marketing Association, Chicago (2005)

Cheung, G., Rensvold, R.B.: Assessing extreme and acquiescent response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 31, 187–212 (2000). doi: 10.1177/0022022100031002003

Davidov, E., De Beuckelaer, A.: Testing the equivalence of an instrument to assess Schwartz’s human values: how harmful are translations? Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22, 485–510 (2010). doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edq030

Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J.: Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology 40, 55–75 (2014). doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137

Davis, C.M.: Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

De Beuckelaer, A., Weijters, B., Rutten, A.: Using ad hoc measures for response styles: a cautionary note. Qual. Quant. 44, 761–775 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s11135-009-9225-z

De Jong, M.G., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Fox, J.P., Baumgartner, H.: Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: global investigation. J. Mark. Res. 45, 104–115 (2008). doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.1.104

De Langhe, B., Puntoni, S., Fernandes, D., Van Osselaer, S.M.: The anchor contraction effect in international marketing research. J. Mark. Res. 48(2), 366–380 (2011)

Diamantopoulos, A., Reynolds, N.L., Simintiras, A.C.: The impact of response styles on the stability of cross-national comparisons. J. Bus. Res. 59(8), 925–935 (2006).

Dolnicar, S., Grün, B.: Cross-cultural differences in survey response patterns. Int. Mark. Rev. 24, 127–143 (2007). doi: 10.1108/02651330710741785

Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F. W.: Structural equation models for multitrait-multimethod data. In: Eid, M., Diener, E. (eds.) Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology, pp. 283–299. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (2006). doi: 10.1037/11383-020

Harzing, A.-W.: Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 6, 243–266 (2006). doi: 10.1177/1470595806066332

Hirschfeld, L.A., Gelman, S.A.: Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Cambridge University Press, New York (1994)

Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C.: Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 20, 296–309 (1989). doi: 10.1177/0022022189203004

Kieruj, N.D., Moors, G.: Response style behavior: question format dependent or personal style? Qual. Quant. 47, 193–211 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9511-4

Paulhus, D.L.: Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychology Attitudes, vol. 1, 1st edn, pp. 17–59. Academic Press, San Diego (1991)

Perlmutter, B.F., Touliatos, J., Holden, G.W.: Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P.: Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. 88(5), 879–903 (2003).

Robinson, J.P., Rusk, J.G., Head, K.B.: Measures of Political Attitudes. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor (1969)

Smith, P.B.: Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 50–61 (2004). doi: 10.1177/0022022103260380

Steenkamp, J.B.E., Baumgartner, H.: Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Cons. Res. 25(1), 78–90 (1998)

Steenkamp, J.B.E., De Jong, M.G., Baumgartner, H.: Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. J. Mark. Res. 47, 199–214 (2010). doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199

Traub, R.E.: MMSS Reliability for the Social Sciences: Theory and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)

Tzeng, O.C.S.: Measurement of Love and Intimate Relations: Theories, Scales, and Applications for Love Development, Maintenance, and Dissolution. Praeger, Westport (1993)

Van Dijk, T.K., Datema, F., Piggen, A.L.J.H.F., Welten, S.C.M., Van De Vijver, F.J.R.: Acquiescence and extremity in cross-national surveys: domain dependence and country-level correlates. In: Gari, A., Mylonas, K. (eds.) Quod erat demonstrandum: From Herodotus’ ethnographic journeys to cross-cultural research, pp. 149–158. Pedio Books, Athens (2009)

Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y.H., Verhallen, T.M.M.: Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 346–360 (2004). doi: 10.1177/0022022104264126

Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Thomas, T.D.: Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 25, 195–217 (2013). doi: 10.1093/ijpor/eds021

Weathers, D., Sharma, S., Niedrich, R.W.: The impact of the number of scale points, dispositional factors, and the status quo decision heuristic on scale reliability and response accuracy. J. Bus. Res. 58, 1516–1524 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.08.002

Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., Schillewaert, N.: The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. Int. J. Res. Mark. 27, 236–247 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004

Weijters, B., Geuens, M., Baumgartner, H.: The effect of familiarity with the response category labels on item response to Likert scales. J. Consum. Res. 40, 368–381 (2013). doi: 10.1086/670394

Weijters, B., Schillewaert, N., Geuens, M.: Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 409–422 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0077-6

Wright, P.H.: A bare-bones guide to the acquaintance description form—F2. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks (1997)