Social Indicators Research

, Volume 104, Issue 2, pp 271–286 | Cite as

Can we Rate Public Support for Democracy in a Comparable Way? Cross-National Equivalence of Democratic Attitudes in the World Value Survey

Article

Abstract

In this study we examine the cross-cultural equivalence of two scales that measure attitudes toward democracy across 36 countries in the World Value Survey (WVS) 2000. We examine the equivalence of these scales in order to explore if we can meaningfully compare democratic attitudes across countries. Multiple group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) is applied to answer this question. The analyses indicate that the scales may be compared but only to a certain extent and not across all the countries. We close this article by discussing the implications of the findings.

Keywords

Attitudes toward democracy Measurement invariance Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) World Value Survey (WVS) 

References

  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbuckle, J. L. (1995–2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
  3. Billiet, J. (2003). Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 247–264). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethods matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., & Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtice, J. (2007). Comparative opinion surveys. In J. R. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 898–909). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 57–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dalton, J. R., & Ong, N. T. (2005). Authority orientations and democratic attitudes: A test of the ‘Asian values’ hypothesis. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 6(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton, R., Shin, D. C., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156.Google Scholar
  15. Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  16. Davidov, E. (2009). Measurement equivalence of nationalism and constructive patriotism in the ISSP: 34 countries in a comparative perspective. Political Analysis, 17(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  19. De Beuckelaer, A. (2005). Measurement invariance issues in international management research. Unpublished dissertation, Limburgs University Centrum, Centrum, Limburg, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Diamond, L. J. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dixon, J. C. (2008). A clash of civilizations? examining liberal-democratic values in Turkey and the European Union. British Journal of Sociology, 59(4), 681–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Esmer, Y. (2002). Is there an Islamic civilization? Comparative Sociology, 1(3–4), 265–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guerin, D., Pétry, F., & Crete, J. (2004). Tolerance, protest and democratic transition: Survey evidence from 13 Post-Communist countries. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haerpfer, C. W. (2008). Support for democracy and autocracy in Russia and the Commonwealth of independent states, 1992–2002. International Political Science Review, 29(4), 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. P. (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods Hoboken. New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  26. Heath, A., & Martin, J. (1997). Why are there so few formal measuring instruments in social and political research. In L. E. Fyberg, et al. (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 71–86). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Heath, A., Fisher, S., & Smith, S. (2005). The globalization of public opinion research. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofmann, S. R. (2004). Islam and democracy: Micro-level indications of compatibility. Comparative Political Studies, 37(6), 652–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(4), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inglehart, R. (2003). How solid is mass support for democracy—and how can we measure it? Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 51–57.Google Scholar
  32. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). The true clash of civilizations. Foreign Policy, 135, 63–70.Google Scholar
  33. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, 31–40.Google Scholar
  35. Jowell, R., Roberts, C., Fitzgerald, R., & Gillian, E. (Eds.). (2007). Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European social survey. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 567–583.Google Scholar
  37. Kittilson, M. C. (2006). Research resources in comparative political behavior. In J. R. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 865–895). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Klingemann, H.-D (1999). Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic Governance (pp. 151–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Knoppen, D., & Saris, W. E. (2009). Do we have to combine values in the Schwartz’ human values scale? A comment on the Davidov studies. Survey Research Methods, 3(2), 91–103.Google Scholar
  40. Lagos, M. (2003). Support for and satisfaction with democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(4), 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linde, J., & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(4), 514–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). Political support for incomplete democracies: Realist vs. idealist theories and measures. International Political Science Review, 22(4), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Norris, P. (2009). The globalization of comparative public opinion research. In N. Robinson & T. Landman (Eds.), Handbook of comparative politics (pp. 522–539). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Pettersson, T. (2008). Different patterns of compartmentalisation among Muslims and Christians? In J. Haynes (Ed.), Routldge handbook of religion & politics (pp. 246–270). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Reeskens, T., & Hooghe, M. (2008). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey (2002 and 2004). Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rizzo, H., Abdel-Latif, A., & Meyer, K. (2007). The relationship between gender equality and democracy: A comparison of Arab versus non-Arab Muslim societies. Sociology, 41(6), 1151–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowley, C. K., & Smith, N. (2009). Islam’s democracy paradox: Muslims claim to like democracy, so why do they have so little? Public Choice, 139(3), 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2007). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schedler, A., & Sarsfield, R. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shin, D. C. (2007). Democratization: Perspectives from global citizenries. In J. R. Dalton & H. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 259–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, T. W. (2003). Developing comparable questions in cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, Van de Vijver, J. R. Fons, & P. H. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 69–91). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  57. Steenbergen, M. R. (2000). Item similarity in scale analysis. Political Analysis, 8(3), 261–283.Google Scholar
  58. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tessler, M. (2002). Islam and democracy in the Middle East: The impact of religious orientations on attitudes toward democracy in four Arab countries. Comparative Politics, 34(3), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tessler, M., Moaddel, M., & Inglehart, R. (2006). What do Iraqis want? Journal of Democracy, 17(1), 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toros, E. (2010). The relationship between Islam and democracy in Turkey: Employing political culture as an indicator. Social Indicators Research, 95(2), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tusicisny, A. (2007). Security communities and their values: Taking masses seriously. International Political Science Review, 28(4), 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Bias and equivalence: Cross-cultural perspective. In J. A. Harkness, Van de Vijver, J. R. Fons, & P. H. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 143–155). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  64. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, Z., Dalton, R. J. D., & Shin, D. C. (2006). Political trust, political performance, and support for democracy. In J. R. Dalton & D. C. Shin (Eds.), Citizens, democracy, and markets around the Pacific rim (pp. 135–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. (2004). The performance of some observed and unobserved conditional invariance techniques for the detection of differential item functioning. Quality & Quantity, 38(6), 681–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., & Billiet, J. (2002). A comparison of techniques for detecting cross-cultural inequivalence at the item level. Quality & Quantity, 36(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Welzel, C. (2007). Are levels of democracy affected by mass attitudes? Testing attainment and sustainment effects on democracy. International Political Science Review, 28(4), 397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations