week12

							Culture and Survey Response

Lecture Week 12: Conceptual Issues
By: Shirley Cheng & Adam Branson
Week 12 Discussion Outline

   Introduction
       Cross-Culture background
   Paper Review
   General Discussion
       Aggregate the readings
Warm up discussion
What is Culture?

What is the focus of cross-cultural research?
 What is the general research question?
     Cross-cultural comparison of survey response
      behaviors
     Why do we suspect cultural difference?

Cultural Dimensions
     Cultural Orientation
     Cultural Subgroups
        Impacts various aspects of survey response
         behaviors
The readings
   Survey compliance and nonresponse
       Cialdini et al. (1999; also Johnson et al. 2002)
   Response style
       Johnson et al. (2005)
   Context effect; Response scale effect
       Haberstroh et al. (2002); Schwarz (2003)
   Social desirability responding
       Lalwani et al. (2006; also Johnson and van de Vijver
        2002)
     Cialdini et al. (1999)

   Compliance With a Request in Two Cultures
      What cultural dimensions are studied?
      What are their findings?


   Four Hypothesis: Four Results
   What are six social influence principles?
      What are SP and C/C?
      What are the effects Social Proof (SP) and
       Commitment/Consistency (C/C) on I/C
      How would reciprocity, authority, scarcity,
       and liking affect compliance?
          Cialdini et al. (1999)
   Does it matter whether culture is self-identified, proxy reported, or
    determined by a Cultural Orientation Scale (COS) or measure?
    (Handout)
        Is it measuring individual respondents, groups of respondents, both?
        How would we use other survey modes to conduct a COS?
        Is it a reliable measure of cultural orientation?
        How would cultural features of the interviewer influence compliance?

   Questions and Critiques
        Is it a problem if the researchers only conducted the follow-up on U.S.
         students?
        What if it is not Coca-Cola? Less well-known? A firm w/ neg. or neut.
         connotations?
        Does it matter that Poland is/was a country undergoing transition?
         Would there be other results if we revisit the respondents later?
        Is there something different or shared about college students in
         Poland and the U.S.?
        Was methodology sound?
     Cialdini et al. (1999)
   The principles of SP and C/C appear important
    determinants of compliance decisions in each
    society. SP has greater effect on collectivists
    and C/C has greater effect on individualists.

   In a collectivistic society, how one behaved in
    the past may not be an accurate reflection of
    one’s own preferences.

   Priming procedures not only activate focal
    constructs in consciousness, but also deactivate
    competing or incompatible constructs.
    Johnson et al. (2002)
   Culture and Survey Nonresponse
       What cultural dimensions are studied?
       What are their findings?

       What are the differences in culture based on non-
        controllable factors, like race or ethnicity, and
        controllable factors such as nationality? Will surveys
        capture biracial, multinational, trilingual respondents?

       If it is important for non-response that there has been
        a greater attrition on panel data collection from certain
        races and ethnicities, what does this imply for cross-
        cultural response?

       What are the cultural orientations we can unpackage?
         Johnson et al. (2002) cont’d.
   What are implications of:
        I/C
        Power Distance
        Vertical or Horizontal
         Relationships                            Social
        Cultural Differences in               Participation
         Context Requirements                    Patterns
        Nonverbal Behavior
        Self-Disclosure
        Minority Oppression and
         Opposition              Respondent   Socioeconomic    Respondent
        Social Distance           Culture    Opportunities      Access/
        Helping Behavior
                                                               Cooperation
    on survey response?

   Do these items interaction with
    each other amplify or weaken
    the cross-cultural variability            Communication
    presented in survey response                 Styles
    like they do in nonresponse?
Future Research Ideas from Cialdini et al.
(2002) and Johnson et al. (2002)
 Cialdini (2002):
    Is willingness to comply enough or should we measure actual
     survey taking (does anonymity matter).
    Examine impact of existing I/C orientation on the effectiveness
     of C/C and SP principles (explore foot in door and long or short
     lists).
    Examine how interpersonal relations, such as hierarchical
     authority or social distance impact compliance with a request
     (what happens if we know the interviewer).

 Johnson et al. (2002):
    We must investigate of limits of residence, race, and ethnic
     status measures as proxies of culture.
    We must explore cultural orientations, such as degree
     respondent consider themselves an I/C.
    We must see if it is possible to map these cultural orientations
     onto other constructs.
Johnson et al. (2005)
-Cross-cultural difference in response style


   Two forms of response style:
       Extreme responding
       Acquiescent responding


   Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions
Johnson et al. (2005)

Power distance
 What are the findings:
       Acquiescent responding
       Extreme responding


   What is the rationale? Are you
    surprised with the findings?
Johnson et al. (2005)

Uncertainty avoidance
 What are the findings:
       Acquiescent responding
       Extreme responding


   What is the rationale?
Johnson et al. (2005)

Individualism
 What are the findings:
       Acquiescent responding
       Extreme responding


   What is the rationale?
Johnson et al. (2005)

Masculinity
 What are the findings:
       Acquiescent responding
       Extreme responding


   What is the rationale?
Likelihood of
Cultures to Exhibit Response Styles

                 Extreme    Acquiescence
                 Response
Power distance      +            -


Uncertainty         ns           -
avoidance
Individualism       ns           -


Masculinity         -            -
Discussion

   We need more specific conceptualization
    of the effect of each cultural dimension.

   How is extreme response operationalized?
    How do we verify responses?

   How are cultural dimensions
    operationalized? (see Table 1, pg 269)
       Aggregate (national) level vs. Individual level
   Let’s take a short break
Schwarz (2003)
-Cross cultural difference in scale frequency
  effect


   Recap: What is the scale frequency
    effect?
       What is the basis of this effect?
            It occurs when memory of the behavior is
             ambiguous
Schwarz (2003)

   Memory of other’s behavior
       What is the cultural difference?


   Findings:
       “Chinese students’ reports of public
        behaviors were virtually unaffected by
        scale range.” (p.591)
    Schwarz (2003)
   The “illusionary” cultural difference
       Behavioral frequency (%) of observable
        behaviors:
            40
                     38
            35
                     32            30
            30                     29
            25                            Open
                     22
            20                            Low Freq
            15                            High Freq

            10
             5
             0
                    US         Chinese

   Is the use of proxy report better in a
    collectivist culture?
Schwarz (2003)
-Cross cultural difference in question order
  effect


   Recap: Question order effect?
       What is the basis of this effect?
       Conversational norms
Schwarz (2003)
   Correlation of marital satisfaction(M) and
    life satisfaction (L):
      0.7   0.67

      0.6
      0.5
      0.4
                      0.32
      0.3
      0.2                        0.18

      0.1
       0
            M/L       L/M      Lead-in

   What is the explanation of this effect?
Haberstroh et al. (2002)
   Correlations of academic satisfaction (A)
    and general life satisfaction (L):
             0.78
      0.8
      0.7
      0.6                          0.53       0.5
      0.5
      0.4            0.36
      0.3
      0.2
      0.1
        0
               A/L                      L/A

                     German   Chinese
Haberstroh et al. (2002)
   “Illusionary” cultural difference in
    values of achievement:
       Germans value academic achievement
        more than Chinese.

   Significance of the priming study
       Differential sensitivity towards
        “context”
Interdependence Priming
   Circle the Pronouns
       We go to the city often. Our anticipation fills
        us as we see the skyscrapers come into view.
        We allow ourselves to explore every corner,
        never letting an attraction escape us. Our
        voices fill the air and street. We see all the
        sights, we window shop, and everywhere we
        go we see our reflections looking back at us in
        the glass of a hundred windows. At nightfall
        we linger, our time in the city almost over.
        When finally we must leave, we do so knowing
        that we will soon return. The city belongs to
        us.
Haberstroh et al. (2002)

Discussion
 Is it better to prime respondents
  with one either independent or
  interdependent construal before any
  question?

   How to avoid “illusionary” cultural
    difference in survey results?
        Lalwani et al. (2006)
   Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable
    Responding (SDR)
      What cultural dimensions are studied?


   What is SDR? (Handouts) Does it introduce bias? How?
       Systematic tendency to give answers making the respondent look good.
       Would it manifest if we had proxy respondents? Does anonymity matter
        if it is SDE or SDD? How does SDR introduce systematic or asystematic
        distortion?

   What are the findings?
       Four Studies
       How do I/C vary w.r.t. goals, values, etc.? How does it tie to
        different types of SDR?
       Do HC actively or passively seek social acceptance?
        Lalwani et al. (2006) cont.
   Are impression management (IM) and self deceptive
    enhancement conscious or unconscious forms of
    response editing?

   How do I/C cultural categories vary horizontally and
    vertically? How can we measure and what is the
    reliability?
       16-Item Triandis & Gelfand’s (1995) Cultural Orientation
        Scale
            You and your friends decided to spontaneously go out to dinner.
             What do you think is the best way to handle the bill? (answer)
               1)   Split it equally without regard to what is ordered
               2)   Split it according to how much each person makes
               3)   The group leader pays the bill or decides how to split it
               4)   Compute each person’s charge according to what the
                    person ordered
     Lalwani et al. (2006) cont.
   Lalwani:
        Response tendencies of people with individualistic vs. collectivistic
         cultural orientations respond to two distinct SDR.
              C&HC  IM (but VC does not)
              I&HI  SDE (but VI does not)

        Is that VC and VI do not have any social desirability responding?

        According to the article, and your own intuition, what is the
         fundamental factor that underlies the different “ways” of SDR?

        What are some HC, VC, HI, VI traits?
              HC = particularly oriented toward sociability and maintaining good
               relationships => IM
              HI = self-reliance, independence, capability, and self directness => SDE

        What could possibly be “socially desirable” in VC and VI cultures?
   How does SDR scale measurement effect cultures?
       Are there cultural differences in SDR if we examine
        items on a “yes/no,” “true/false” or Likert-Type scale?

   Does it bring about SDR if we seek affirmation or
    negation? Can SDR depend on if we use statements
    or questions?

        Key      Positive                Negative
        True     I am a saint            I am not a sinner
        False    I am not a saint        I am a sinner

        Yes      Are you a saint         Are you not a sinner?
        No       Are you not a saint?    Are you a sinner?
Johnson and van de Vijver (2002)
   Social Desirability in Cross-Cultural Research

   SD is a universal concept, but there is the possible
    presence of culture-specific factors. Do you agree?

   Do you agree that correction for SD, on occasion,
    will decrease validity of cross-cultural comparisons.

   If SD results from question and administration
    characteristics, how are different individuals or
    cultures triggered or primed?
       W.R.T. admin., is SD a feature of survey questions, mode,
        social distance or difference with the interviewer.
       W.R.T. personal, is SD a response style (keying), a
        personality characteristic?
       Can we deactivate SD?
Johnson and van de Vijver (2002)
   What is the purpose of Lie Scale, Eysenk Personality
    Questionnaire and Marlow-Crowne Scale measures?
       Are some tools better assessments of one culture than
        another culture?
       Are the tools consistent with one another inside a
        culture?

   Treating SD as a person characteristic:
       Will q’s that do not activate cultural perceptions in one
        culture be processed without any SDR? What does
        this mean if it activates cultural perceptions in only
        one culture of a cross cultural comparison?

   Is individualism in culture A the same as
    individualism in culture B? Collectivism?
        Future Research ideas from Lalwani et
        al. and Johnson and Van De Vijver
Lalwani et al.:
   If SDR is a major cause of research bias, what does it mean for surveying
    field?
       We need to look at ways to address the effects of SDR. Will C
         orientation only manifest itself with C priming or surroundings?
       What linkages exist between other aspects of culture and SDR? What
         possibilities can be read into the study of Japanese that choose to study
         in Canada? Is it groups of people (a culture) or individual persons (parts
         of a culture) that matter?
Johnson and van de Vijver:
   There is a need for theories explaining cultural differences and SD
    tendencies along with methods that measure and control during cross-
    cultural research. Why?
       There is no simple safeguard against SD, but it can often be measured
        or bias techniques can be used to evaluate if score differences are due
        to questions or culture.
       SD shows systematic cross-cultural difference that are negatively
        related to affluence of countries and to social power of individuals.
        Also, individuals from more affluent countries show lower SD scores.
        Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between SD and GNP (incl:
        educational level and personal income).
       Is it that cultural value systems (e.g. C/I or the need for affiliation,
        conformity, approval and other psych. Constructs) are related to SD.
What more should we learn in this topic?
Cognitive Stage           I/C              Racial subgroup

Comprehension Haberstroh et al. (2002)
Stage

Judgment Stage Haberstroh et al. (2002)


Formatting         Schwarz (2003)
Stage

                  Johnson et al. (2005);
Editing Stage
                Johnson and van de
                Vijver (2002);
                Lalwani et al. (2006)
      General Discussion
   Any cross-cultural difference in mode effect?
      For examples, face-to-face interviews (vs. other
       modes) induces more compliance among
       collectivists, but such difference is smaller among
       individualist?

   What other cultural dimensions might effect survey
    response?
General Discussion
   Three ways to investigate cultural
    differences:
       Aggregate level (Johnson et al. 2002)
       Individual level (Cialdini et al. 1999)
       Within individual (intercultural priming;
        Haberstroh 2002)


   Pros and Cons of each?

   Is culture quantifiable?
Thanks!