Acquiescent Response Bias as an Aspect of Cultural Communication Style

By Peter B. Smith. 2004

545 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Estimates of acquiescent response bias derived from previously published, large-scale cross-cultural surveys that used Likert-type response scales are compared. Substantial evidence for convergent validity is found, particularly in relation to the surveys that measured value preferences. High bias in responses to personally relevant items is found in nations that are high on family collectivism and on a preference for increased uncertainty avoidance. High bias in responses to descriptions of others is found in nations low in uncertainty avoidance. These findings suggest that national indicators of acquiescence have substantive cultural meaning and should not be eliminated from nation-level analyses but rather built into analyses of cultural dynamics.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/252c8ec9c82bd904198ac3817676290ff8473ea3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Autocratic Leadership Around the Globe Do Climate and Wealth Drive Leadership Culture (2006, background): “…of bioclimate-wealth matches have been demonstrated for participative leadership (Van de Vliert & Smith, 2004), delegative leadership (Van de Vliert & Smith, 2004), motives for volunteer work (Van de Vliert, Huang, & Levine, 2004), and competitiveness versus altruism (Van de Vliert, Huang, &…”
The effect of culture on perception and cognition: A conceptual framework (2014, background): “Similarly, an acquiescent response style (Stricker, 1963) is more common in collectivist cultures (Smith, 2004) that value conformity over disagreement.”
An Examination of the Validity of SUS-TAS in Cross-Cultures (2008, methodology): “Contrary to the findings of most cross-cultural studies (e.g., Smith 2004), SUS-TAS has performed well.”
Standardization in psychological research. (2010, background): “Using only items phrased in one direction (either only positively or only negatively) makes detection of extreme responding more difficult, especially considering ARS and ERS often covary (Smith, 2004).”
Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias (2004, background): “Using only items phrased in one direction (either only positively or only negatively) makes detection of extreme responding more difficult, especially considering that both types of response tendencies are often found together (Smith, 2004).”
Communication Styles as Dimensions of National Culture (2011, methodology): “Smith (2004) reported analyses showing that the values and practices dimensions identified by House et al. (2004) that predict nation-level acquiescence differ from one another.”
Cross-National Adolescent Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Reports: Analyses of Mean Scores and Response Style Differences (2008, background): “Given the contradictory findings, researchers have been urged to go beyond simple comparisons of mean scores to explore underlying reasons for obtained differences (Clarke, 2000; Smith, 2004; Watkins and Cheung, 1995).”
Toward a Geography of Personality Traits (2004, background): “A tendency to avoid extreme responses might account for this effect (McCrae, 2002); another possible explanation is the operation of acquiescence bias among collectivistic cultures ( Smith, 2002 ).”
Structural and Mean-Level Analyses of the Five-Factor Model and Locus of Control (2005, background): “There are several possible reasons for this: The translations may be inferior, the items may be less valid trait indicators in non-European cultures, or acquiescent responding (Smith, 2004) may contribute error.”
Creativity and Values (2007, unknown): “First, Schwartz has recommended that the mean values rating be partialled out of analyses because it potentially reflects scale use or acquiescence, and other research confirms this possibility (Smith, 2004 ).”
Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a Social Axiom (2015, methodology): “To exclude cultural response style (that the negatively worded items could be biased culturally by acquiescence bias; see Smith, 2004), we note that the 12-item BZSG scale is not significantly correlated with the acquiescence index constructed by Smith (r = .107, p = .64, n = 21) nor are the 5-item…”
The Antecedents of Psychic Distance (2010, background): “…only the problems introduced by using a non-native language questionnaire (Harzing et al ., 2005; Harzing, 2006; Ralston, Cunniff and Gustafson, 1995) but also those associated with differences in response styles in different cultures (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 2001; Smith, 2004, Harzing, 2006).”
Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. (2005, background): “This bias is different from the acquiescence bias, which is a tendency to agree with a statement regardless of its content (cf. Smith, 2004; van Herk, Poortinga, & Verhallen, 2004).”
Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions (2010, background): “The threat to validity stemming from cross-cultural differences in response sets and acquiescent and extreme response biases have been discussed in depth (for reviews see Harzing, 2006; Hui & Triandis, 1989; Smith, 2004).”