Quality & Quantity

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 193–211 | Cite as

Response style behavior: question format dependent or personal style?



In survey research, acquiescence response style/set (ARS) and extreme response style/set (ERS) may distort the measurement of attitudes. How response bias is evoked is still subject of research. A key question is whether it may be evoked by external factors (e.g. test conditions or fatigue) or whether it could be the result of internal factors (e.g. personality or social characteristics). In the first part of this study we explore whether scale length—the manipulated test condition—influences the occurrence of ERS and/or ARS, by varying scale length from 5 till 11 categories. In pursuit of this we apply a latent class factor model that allows for diagnosing and correcting for ERS and ARS simultaneously. Results show that ERS occurs regardless of scale length. Furthermore, we find only weak evidence of ARS. In a second step we check whether ERS might reflect an internal personal style by (a) linking it to external measures of ERS, and by (b) correlating it with a personality profile and socio-demographic characteristics. Results show that ERS is reasonably stable over questionnaires and that it is associated with the selected personality profile and age.


Extreme response style Acquiescence response style  Attitude measurement Personality Format effects Latent class factor analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin E.J., Deary I.J. and Egan V. (2006). Individual differences in response scale use: mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Pers. Individ. Differ. 40: 1235–1245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billiet J.B. and Davidov E. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociol. Methods Res. 36: 542–562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billiet J.B. and McClendon M.J. (2000). Modelling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Struct. Equ. Model. 7: 608–628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogner F.X. and Wiseman M. (1999). Towards measuring adolescent environmental perception. Eur. Psychol. 4: 139–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolt D.M. and Johnson T.R. (2009). Addressing score bias and differential item functioning due to individual differences in response style. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 33: 335–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen C., Lee S.-y. and Stevenson H.W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychol. Sci. 6: 170–175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung G.W. and Rensvold R.B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 31: 187–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couch A. and Keniston K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 60: 151–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jong M.G., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M., Fox J.-P. and Baumgartner H. (2008). Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: a global investigation. J. Mark. Res. 45: 104–115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamantopoulos A., Reynolds N.L. and Simintiras A.C. (2006). The impact of response styles on the stability of cross-national comparisons. J. Bus. Res. 59: 925–935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiStefano C. and Motl R.W. (2009). Personality correlates of method effects due to negatively worded items on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Pers. Individ. Differ. 46: 309–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolcinar S. and Grün B. (2007). Analytical robustness in cross-cultural comparisons. Int. J. Cult Tour. Hosp. Res. 1: 140–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolcinar S. and Grün B. (2009). Response style contamination of student evaluation data. J. Mark. Educ. 31: 160–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons J.L., Zellner J.A. and Rudek D.J. (1999). Effects of language and meaningfulness on the use of extreme response style by Spanish-English bilinguals. Cross-Cult. Res. 33: 369–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenleaf E.A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opin. Q. 56: 328–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton D.L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychol. Bull. 69: 192–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harzing A.-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. Int. J. Cross-Cult. Manag. 6: 243–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heide M. and Grønhaug K. (1992). The impact of response styles in surveys: a simulation study. J. Mark. Res. Soc. 34: 215–230 Google Scholar
  19. Hui C.H. and Triandis H.C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 20: 296–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurley J.R. (1998). Timidity as a response style to psychological questionnaires. J. Psychol. 132: 202–210 Google Scholar
  21. Institute of Social and Political Opinion Research (ISPO): 1995 general election study Belgium-Flanders. http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData (1997). Accessed 1 Oct 2009
  22. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP): family and gender roles III. http://www.issp.org/data.shtml (2002). Accessed 1 Oct 2009
  23. Johnson T.R., Kulesa P., Cho Y.I. and Shavitt S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: evidence from 19 countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 36: 264–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kieruj, N.D., Moors, G.: Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in attitude research. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/07/23/ijpor.edq001.full.pdf+html (2010). Accessed 31 Aug 2010
  25. Knowles E.S. and Nathan K.T. (1997). Acquiescent responding in self-reports: cognitive style or social concern?. J. Res. Pers. 31: 293–301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koson D., Kitchen C., Kochen M. and Stodolosky D. (1970). Psychological testing by computer: effect on response bias. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 30: 808–810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krosnick J.A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5: 213–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis N. and Taylor J. (1955). Anxiety and extreme response preferences. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 15: 111–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marín G., Gamba R.J. and Marín B. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 23: 498–509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meisenberg G. and Williams A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?. Pers. Individ. Differ. 44: 1539–1550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moors G. (2003). Diagnosing response style behaviour by means of a latent class factor approach. Socio-demographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination re-examined. Qual. Quant. 37: 277–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morren, M.: The survey response: a mixed method study of cross-cultural differences in responding to attitude statements (Doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  33. Naemi, B.D.: Measuring and predicting extreme response style: a latent class approach. http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/17901/1435749.PDF?sequence=1 (2006). Accessed 31 Aug 2010
  34. Naemi B.D., Beal D.J. and Payne S.C. (2009). Personality predictors of extreme response style. J. Pers. 77: 261–286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pedersen D.M. (1967). Acquiescence and social desirability response sets and some personality correlates. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 27: 691–697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rorer L.G. (1965). The great response-style myth. Psychol. Bull. 63: 129–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shulman A. (1973). A comparison of two scales on extremity bias. Public Opin. Q. 37: 407–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith P.B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35: 50–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson S.C.G. and Barton M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14: 149–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Herk H., Poortinga Y.H. and Verhallen T.M.M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 35: 346–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Rosmalen J., Van Herk H. and Groenen P.J.F. (2007). Identifying unknown response styles: a latent class bilinear multinomial logit model. J. Mark. Res. 47: 157–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations