Abstract
It is generally accepted that response style behavior in survey research may seriously distort the measurement of attitudes and subsequent causal models that include attitudinal dimensions. However, there in no single accepted methodological approach in dealing with this issue. This article aims at illustrating the flexibility of a latent class factor approach in diagnosing response style behavior and in adjusting findings from causal models with latent variables. We present a substantive example from the Belgian MHSM research project on integration-related attitudes among ethnic minorities. We argue that an extreme response style can be detected in analyzing two independent sets of Likert-type questions referring to `gender roles' and `feelings of ethnic discrimination'. If the response style is taken into account the effect of covariates on attitudinal dimensions is more adequately estimated.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alwin, D. F. & Krosnick, J. A. (1985). The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 535–552.
Bachman, G. B. & O'Malley, P. M. (1984). Black-white differences in self-esteem: Are they affected by response styles? American Journal of Sociology 90: 624–639.
Bass, B. N. (1955). Authoritarianism or acquiescence? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 616–623.
Berkowitz, N. H. & Wolkon, G. H. (1964). A forced-choice form of the F-scale free of acquiescent response set. Sociometry 24: 54–56
Billiet, J. B. & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling 7: 608–628.
Chapman, L. J. & Campbell, D. T. (1957). Response set in the F-scale. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54: 129–132.
Cheung, M. W.-L. & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 55–77.
Cheung, G.W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in crosscultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31: 187–212.
Cloud, J. & Vaughan, G. M. (1970). Using balanced scales to control acquiescence. Sociometry 33: 193–202.
Couch, A. & Keniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 151–174.
Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 6: 475–494.
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley
Cunningham, W. H., Cunningham, I. C. M. & Green, R. T. (1977). The ipsative process to reduce response set bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 379–384.
Dicken, C. (1967). Acquiescence in the MMPI. Psychological Reports 20: 927–933.
Dicken, C. & Van Pelt, J. (1967). Further evidence concerning acquiescence and the MMPI. Psychological Reports 20: 935–941.
Green, D. P. & Citrin, J. (1994). Measurement error and the structure of attitudes: Are positive and negative judgements opposites? American Journal of Political Science 38: 256–281.
Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 323–351.
Hagenaars, J. A. (1990). Categorical Longitudinal Data – Loglinear Analysis of Panel, Trend and Cohort Data. Sage: Newbury Park.
Hurley, J. R. (1998). Timidity as a Response Style to Psychological Questionnaires. The Journal of Psychology 132: 201–210.
Jackson, D. N. & Messick, S. (1961). Acquiescence and desirability as response determinants on the MMPI. Educational and Psychological Measurement 21: 771–792.
Lesthaeghe, R. (ed.) (2000). Communities and Generations. Turkish and Moroccan Population in Belgium. Brussels: VUB University Press.
Lorge, I. (1937). Gen-like: Halo or reality. Psychological Bulletin 34: 545–546.
Magidson, J. and Vermunt, J. K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, bi-plots, and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology 31: 223–264.
Mogar, R. E. (1960). Three versions of the F-scale and performance on the semantic differential. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 262–265.
Moors, G. (2001). Family theory: The role of changing values, In: N. J. Smelzer & P. B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 8, pp. 5397–5401.
Parsons, T. & Shils, E.A. (eds.) (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. In: J. P. Robinson & R. P. Shaver (eds.), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes Series, Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic, pp. 17–59.
Ray, J. J. (1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. Journal of Social Psychology 121: 81–96.
Rokeach, M. (1963). The double agreement phenomenon: Three hypotheses. Psychological Review 70: 304–309.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin 63: 129–156.
Samelson, F. (1964). Agreement set and anticontent attitudes in the F-scale: A reinterpretation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68: 338–342.
Shuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.
Toner, B. (1987). The impact of agreement bias on the ranking of questionnaire response. Journal of Social Psychology 127: 221–222.
Vermunt, J. K. & Magidson, J. (2000). LatentGold. User's Guide. Belmont: Statistical Innovations Inc.
Yamaguchi, K. (2000). Multinomial logit latent-class regression models: An analysis of the predictors of gender-role attitudes among Japanese women. American Journal of Sociology 105: 1702–1740.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moors, G. Diagnosing Response Style Behavior by Means of a Latent-Class Factor Approach. Socio-Demographic Correlates of Gender Role Attitudes and Perceptions of Ethnic Discrimination Reexamined. Quality & Quantity 37, 277–302 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024472110002
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024472110002