Structural Equivalence and Differential Item Functioning in the Social Axioms Survey

Part of the International and Cultural Psychology book series (ICUP)

The present chapter focuses on the assessment of bias and equivalence of the Social Axioms Survey in a 41-country data set analyzed at the individual level. Two main issues are examined. The first, structural equivalence, addresses the question to what extent the constructs underlying the Social Axioms Survey are universal across the 41 countries. The second, differential item functioning, deals with the question of whether there are particular items or countries that are problematic. Exploratory factor analyses (testing structural equivalence) and analyses of variance (testing item bias) were carried out. The equivalence of the scales was adequate, but neither the exploratory factor analysis nor the analyses of variance provided indisputable support for the equivalence of any scale. The results led to three main conclusions: (1) social axioms show important similarities across cultures; (2) numerical comparisons of scores obtained in different countries must be treated with caution; (3) the observed bias was due to both item and country characteristics. Several items showed secondary (i.e., deviant) loadings in the global factorial solution. Level of economic development and religion (main religious denomination of a country) were associated with bias. In the discussion of our findings, a balanced treatment is recommended to account for both instrument and country characteristics that cause bias.


Exploratory Factor Analysis Differential Item Functioning Social Complexity Country Characteristic Item Bias 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004a). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., Singelis, T. M., Broer, M., Boen, F., Lambert, S. M., Ferreira, M. C., Noels, K. A., Va n Bavel, J., Safdar, S., Zhang, J., Chen, L., Solcova, I., Stetovska, I., Niit, T., Niit, K., Hurme, H., Böling, M., Franchi, V., Magradze, G., Javakhishvili, N., Boehnke, K., Klinger, E., Huang, X., Fülop, M., Berkics, M., Panagiotopoulou, P., Sriram S., Chaudhary, N., Ghosh, A., Vohra, N, Iqbal, D. F., Kurman, J., Comunian, A. L., Son, K. A., Austers, I., Harb, C., Odusanya, J. O. T., Ahmed, Z. A., Ismail, R., Va n de Vijver, F. J. R., Ward, C., Mogaji, A., Sam, D. L., Khan, M. J. Z., Cabanillas, W. E., SyCip, L., Neto, F., Cabecinhas, R., Xavier, P., Dinca, M., Lebedeva, N., Viskochil, A., Ponomareva, O., Burgess, S. M., Oceja, L. J., Campo, S., Hwang, K., D ' Souza, J. B., Ataca, B., Furnham, A., & Lewis, J. R. (2004b). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, W., Ho, R. M., Leung, K., Cha, D. K.-S., & Yung, Y.-F. (1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4, 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, S. X., Fok, H. K., Bond, M. H., & Matsumuto, D. (2006). Personality and beliefs about the world revisited: Expanding the nomological network of social axioms. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Fontaine, J. (1999). Culturele vertekening in Schwartz ' waardeninstrument[Cultural bias in Schwartz ' s values instrument]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
  8. Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kagitcibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.) (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Georgas, J., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indices and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.) (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2003). GLOBE, cultures, leadership, and organizations: GLOBE study of 62 societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Kok, F. G., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van der Flier, H. (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using the iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., De Carrasquel, S. R., Muñoz, C., Hernández, M., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., & Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., and 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheuneman, J. (1987). An experimental, exploratory study of causes of bias in test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schilt-Van Mol, T. M. M. L., & Vallen, T. (2006). Avoiding unintentionally difficult test items for immigrant minority students. Differentiation without DIF. LAUD Papers. Series A: General and Theoretical Papers, 674, 1–17.Google Scholar
  19. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). The universal content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies(Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  23. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgthe Netherlands
  2. 2.North-West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations