International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Business Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

Do culture-dependent response styles distort substantial relationships?

Stefan Hoffmann a,*, Robert Mai b,1, Anamaria Cristescu b,1
a
b

Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Marketing, 24098 Kiel, Germany
TU Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Chair of Marketing, 01062, Dresden, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 16 May 2012
Received in revised form 20 November 2012
Accepted 17 January 2013

Survey data are frequently distorted by answering tendencies, such as acquiescence,

disacquiescence, midpoint and extreme response style. Cross-cultural research projects
may be particularly vulnerable to misinterpretations. This paper provides empirical
insights into the manner and degree to which culture systematically distorts ndings from
survey data. The study is based on data from 1027 respondents from Austria, France,
Germany, India, Mexico, Russia, Spain, and the United States. The investigation rstly
demonstrates that Hofstedes and project GLOBEs cultural dimensions explain variations
in response styles across different countries. Secondly, and most importantly, the paper
explores the impact of culture-dependent response styles on ndings. Remarkably, the
extent of distortion in correlation analysis and mean comparisons is less severe than
expected. Nonetheless, cross-cultural researchers would be well advised to control at least
for (dis-)acquiescence before analyzing and interpreting their data.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Acquiescence
Cross-cultural research
Disacquiescence
Equivalence
Hofstede
Project GLOBE
Response styles

1. Introduction
Cross-cultural comparisons have become standard in the international business literature (Nakata & Hung, 2005; Okazaki
& Mueller, 2007; Okazaki, Taylor, & Doh, 2007), with most comparative work being based on surveys. However, survey data
are frequently distorted by certain response patterns, such as acquiescence, disacquiescence, midpoint tendencies and
extreme response style (Harzing et al., 2009; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007; van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). The inuence of these
answering tendencies on study results may be particularly severe when conducting cross-cultural research because culture
determines how participants respond to rating scales (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2001; Harley, 1998; Smith, 2004; van
Herk, Poortinga, & Verhallen, 2004). Depending on their cultural background, respondents may be more (or less) likely to
answer in the afrmative or use the extreme points of a scale irrespective of the item content. Consequently, answering
tendencies are a source of unwanted differences in observed measurement scores when comparing data from different
cultures. If culture-specic contamination is large, scholars might not be able to draw valid conclusions in cross-cultural
research.
While several researchers have already demonstrated in large cross-national survey studies that culture affects the
degree of different response biases (Harzing, 2006; Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt, 2005; Smith, 2004; van Herk et al., 2004),
no comprehensive study has yet analyzed the consequences of this methodological issue. In this paper, we examine how
strongly culture-dependent response styles distort substantial ndings from cross-cultural research. In doing so, we

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 431 880 4737; fax: +49 431 880 3349.
E-mail addresses: stefan.hoffmann@bwl.uni-kiel.de (S. Hoffmann), robert.mai@tu-dresden.de (R. Mai).
1
Tel.: +49 351 463 34056; fax: +49 351 463 37176.
0969-5931/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.008

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

815

consider if and when it is necessary to correct for which response styles. Note that we use the term substantial to
differentiate the impact of response bias on important study results (the answers to the research question) from purely
methodological issues. For example, the inuence of a response style on the observed level of a certain scale (e.g.,
ethnocentrism) is a methodological issue. A substantial issue would be the relationship between this scale and other relevant
constructs (e.g., cosmopolitanism). For this particular example, we examine whether the inuence of a response style on the
scales of ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism (=methodological issue) affects the relationship between both constructs in
different cultures (=substantial issue). Expressed more formally, we approach the so far unanswered question of whether the
well-documented methodological issue actually affects substantial relationships in cross-cultural comparison research.
To ll the outlined void, this paper focuses on the four most widely discussed response styles, namely acquiescence
response style (ARS), disacquiescence response style (DRS), midpoint response style (MRS) and extreme response style (ERS).
Among others, Baumgartner and Steenkamp (2001), as well as Weijters, Geuens, and Schillewaert (2008), suggest methods
for detecting and correcting the four types of response biases. We apply these methods in a multi-cultural sample in order to
make the following two contributions to the eld. First, we analyze which cultural dimensions vary with response style.
While previous studies have already considered some of the possible inuences (Harzing, 2006; Johnson et al., 2005; Smith,
2004; van Herk et al., 2004), we extend the literature by replicating ndings on a broader empirical basis and by extending
previous approaches to a wider set of response styles, countries, and cultural dimensions. The empirical study is based on a
data set collected in eight countries (Austria, France, Germany, India, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States). In total,
the sample consists of 1027 respondents. Our second and main contribution is to demonstrate how strongly culture distorts
survey ndings. To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet systematically conducted this second and most crucial step in
analyzing culture-dependent response style distortions. We analyze contaminations in correlations and mean comparisons
in international business research considering three focal constructs. We choose ethnocentrism, patriotism and
cosmopolitanism, because they are often subject to research in international business. On a broad empirical basis, we
reveal that although the effect of culture on response styles is signicant, the inuence on substantial relationships is less
severe than commonly expected.
We organize the remainder of the paper as follows. First, we briey describe correction methods for different types of
response styles and review previous research on the relationships between these response styles and the cultural
dimensions suggested by Hofstede (2001), as well as project GLOBE (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). We
reanalyze and largely conrm these relationships with our empirical data. Building on this robust nding, we then assess the
extent to which culture-dependent response styles distort ndings in cross-cultural studies.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Response styles
The international business literature has identied four main answering tendencies that may distort survey data in crosscultural research projects (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2001; Harzing et al., 2009; Weijters et al., 2008). Firstly, acquiescence
response style (ARS) describes the tendency of respondents to agree with items regardless of their content. For example, if the
respondent rates a statement on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = I strongly disagree to 7 = I strongly agree, (s)he
chooses 5, 6 or 7 disproportionately often. Secondly, disacquiescence response style (DRS) describes a tendency toward
disagreement. Regardless of the items content, the respondent chooses the categories that disafrm the statement (1, 2
and 3). Thirdly, midpoint response style (MRS) describes the tendency of respondents to avoid a clear positioning. These
respondents tend to choose the middle of the scale (4). Fourthly, extreme response style (ERS) describes the tendency to
check the most extreme points of the scale (1 and 7). Harzing (2006) additionally identies two subtypes of ERS: positive
extreme response style (7) and negative extreme response style (1).
We follow the procedures suggested by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (2001) and Weijters et al. (2008) to calculate
response style indicators. Therefore, we counted how often each respondent ticks the different points of seven-point
answering scales (1 to 7). In order to calculate the indices for different response styles (ARS, DRS, ERS, MRS), we weighted
each of these frequencies differently. The specic weights for each response style and the complete formula for seven-pointrating scales are depicted in Table 1. We calculated the indices in such a way that each index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0
indicating no response bias at all and 1 indicating a strong bias. In the next step, the inuence of response styles is
partialled out to estimate unbiased answers (Fischer, 2004; Leung & Bond, 1989; Smith, 2004).
2.2. Culture
Hofstedes (1991) software of the mind metaphor is a widely cited concept of culture. A collective level of mental
programming is shared by a group of people that distinguishes itself from other groups. In a related manner, the project
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) emphasizes that culture refers to a set of parameters
of collectives that differentiate the collectives from each other in meaningful ways (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman,
2002, p. 5). Many researchers attempt to operationalize the concept of culture through a multidimensional approach.
Cultural dimensions are used to describe the differences and similarities between societies. Dimensional concepts have been
suggested, among others, by Hofstede (1991), Triandis (1988), Trompenaars (1994), Schwartz (1994) and House et al. (2004).

816

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

Table 1
Formula to calculate indices of answering tendencies.
Response style

Formula

Acquiescence response style (ARS)

(1)
ARS f 5  1 f 6  2 f 7  3=3k
(2)
DRS f 1  3 f 2  2 f 3  1=3k
(3)
MRS f 4=k
(4)
ERS f 1 f 7=k

Disacquiescence response style (DRS)

Midpoint response style (MRS)
Extreme response style (ERS)

Notes. Formula adjusted for seven-point rating scales ranging from 1 = I strongly disagree to 7 = I strongly agree. f(x) = total number of ticks of scale point
x of the seven-point rating scale. k = total number of items.

We build on the seminal work of Hofstede (2001), which is the most widespread approach in the international business
literature, and on project GLOBE (House et al., 2004), which is the most comprehensive and up-to-date approach.
Hofstedes (2001) cultural dimensions are based upon social anthropological assumptions of basic problems with which
every society is confronted. They reect the different ways people react to problems, as well as the different solutions that
members of a society use to solve them. Hofstedes original approach covers the following four cultural dimensions: power
distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance. Hofstedes cultural
conceptualization remains one of the most cited approaches in the social sciences, and we therefore apply it in the
present study. It should be noted, however, that the methodological approach underlying Hofstedes work has been subject
to intensive criticism (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Yoo & Donthu, 2002). Furthermore, since the political and economic
situation has changed in recent decades, some scholars argue that Hofstedes list of cultural proles of different countries
may even be obsolete (Gooderham & Nordhaug, 2001; McSweeney, 2002). Due to this valid criticism, we additionally
consider the approach of project GLOBE.
The GLOBE project collected data from 17,300 managers working in 951 organizations in 62 societies (House et al., 2004).
GLOBE distinguishes between nine cultural dimensions, namely performance orientation, institutional collectivism, gender
egalitarianism, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, future orientation, humane orientation, assertiveness and
power distance. Project GLOBEs cultural concept has several advantages over other cultural conceptualizations. Most
importantly, it distinguishes between cultural values and practices (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). Cultural values refer to how
members of a society wish how things should be done (as it should be). By contrast, cultural practices capture perceptions
of the way things are currently done in a society. They measure how individuals assess present common behaviors and
institutional practices in their country (as it is). Furthermore, project GLOBE measures culture at both societal and
organizational levels. In this study, we consider only the societal level.
2.3. Previous research on culture-dependent response styles
Only four studies have analyzed the relationships between response styles and cultural dimensions in larger multiplecountry studies which enable valid cultural comparisons (Table 2). Smith (2004) focused only on acquiescence response
style. His investigation revealed that there is a danger of an acquiescence bias if items cover values, beliefs and attitudes, and
if items are personally relevant. This response style bias is positively related to Hofstedes power distance index, to project
GLOBEs future orientation and uncertainty avoidance values, as well as to GLOBEs power distance and in-group collectivism
practices. It is negatively related to Hofstedes individualism index and to GLOBEs gender egalitarianism values.
van Herk et al. (2004) considered acquiescence and extreme response styles in six European countries (Greece, Italy,
Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom). Their study reveals that Greece has the highest acquiescence and extreme
response style indices, while the United Kingdom scores lowest on these indices. This nding indicates that individualism is
negatively related to acquiescence and extreme response styles.
The research of Johnson et al. (2005) considers how acquiescence and extreme response styles are related to Hofstedes
dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and individualism. The study covers 19 countries with
respect to extreme response style measurement and 10 countries for acquiescence measurement. The investigation
indicates that all four cultural dimensions negatively inuence acquiescence response style. Power distance and masculinity
foster an extreme response style.
Harzing (2006) collected data from 26 countries to investigate whether acquiescence, positive and negative extreme
response style and midpoint response style are culture-dependent. She considered the inuence of power distance,
individualism and uncertainty avoidance as measured by both Hofstede and project GLOBE. Acquiescence response style is
inuenced negatively by Hofstedes individualism index and GLOBEs institutional collectivism practices. It is positively
affected by Hofstedes power distance index and GLOBEs in-group collectivism practices, as well as GLOBEs uncertainty
avoidance index practices and values. Negative extreme response style has a negative relationship with GLOBEs power
distance values and with GLOBEs in-group collectivism practices. A positive extreme response style is positively correlated

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

817

Table 2
Overview of prior research on the relationships between culture and response styles.
Cultural dimension

Conceptualization

Response style
ARS

ERS

Individualism
In-group collectivism
Institutional collectivism
Power distance

Hofstede
GLOBE practices
GLOBE practices
Hofstede
GLOBE practices
GLOBE values
GLOBE value
Hofstede
GLOBE values
Hofstede
GLOBE practices
GLOBE values

a,b,c,d
+a,d
d
+a,d/c
+a

b

Future orientation
Masculinity
Gender egalitarianism
Uncertainty avoidance

NERS

PERS

d

+d

MRS
d

+c

d
d

+a
c
a
c
+d
+a,d

+c

+d

Notes. ARS: acquiescence response style; MRS: midpoint response style; ERS: extreme response style; PERS: positive extreme response style; NERS:
negative extreme response style.
Findings: +: signicant positive correlation; : signicant negative correlation.
Sources:
a
Smith (2004).
b
van Herk et al. (2004).
c
Johnson et al. (2005).
d
Harzing (2006).

to GLOBEs in-group collectivism practices and uncertainty avoidance values. A midpoint response style is negatively related
to Hofstedes indices of individualism and power distance.
To summarize, these studies provide empirical evidence that culture affects response styles. Notably, extant studies have
extensively analyzed cultural inuences on acquiescence response styles, while more research is needed on the other
response styles. Additionally, and most importantly, the extent to which culture-dependent response styles affect
substantial relationships in cross-cultural studies, has not yet been sufciently researched.
3. Design
3.1. Objective of the study
The main aim of the present study is to assess the level of distortion that culture-dependent response styles impose on
substantial ndings in cross-cultural research. To this end, we conducted a large-scale survey in several countries, capturing
various cultural proles. We rstly estimate response styles using the formula presented in Table 1. Next, we analyze
whether the mean index of response styles varies across countries, and we assess the relationships between national cultural
proles and response styles. Finally, we turn to our main research question and examine the degree to which response styles
affect ndings in cross-cultural research.
3.2. Sample
The data set for the present research includes samples from eight countries. These countries cover several cultural
clusters suggested by project GLOBE (Gupta & Hanges, 2004), namely Anglo (U.S.), Latin America (Mexico), Latin Europe
(France, Spain), Germanic Europe (Austria, Germany), Eastern Europe (Russia) and Southern Asia (India).
In contrast to common practice, we did not build on a convenience sample collected in specic rms or in classrooms.
Instead, we trained interviewers to recruit respondents in the streets or in city centers. We checked whether the respondents
are natives of the country in which the survey was conducted. If not, they were excluded. The sample size in each country is
approximately 100, ranging from 83 in Mexico to 178 in Russia. In total, we gathered a sample of 1027 respondents. We
applied quota stops to ensure that the eight national samples were largely equal with respect to age and sex distribution
(Table 3). The mean age of the respondents is 33.1 years and 51.3 percent are female.
3.3. Scales
We developed questionnaires in the native language of each country, because Harzing et al. (2009) demonstrated that
subjects respond to questions in their native language more accurately. In the Indian sample, we used an English version,
because English is the ofcial working language in this country. All other versions were created using the translation/backtranslation procedure suggested by Brislin (1970).
The interviewers handed out a questionnaire that the participants completed themselves. It took approximately 15 min
to answer the questionnaire, which contained roughly 100 items. For the following reasons, we used a relatively long

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

818
Table 3
Description of the national samples.

Austria
France
Germany
India
Mexico
Russia
Spain
U.S.

Age

Sex

SD

Min

Max

% female

112
119
170
105
83
178
148
112

36.7
29.0
34.8
29.5
28.3
35.1
35.9
31.2

12.2
11.5
13.4
9.6
12.0
13.5
12.8
12.0

18
18
18
19
16
18
18
18

69
76
70
69
57
68
71
69

52.7
50.6
50.6
41.0
44.6
58.6
54.7
58.9

questionnaire. If a questionnaire contains only a few content-related indicators, it is difcult to discriminate between
substantial answers of a respondent (e.g., agreeing with a statement) and a response style (e.g., acquiescence response style).
This is particularly true if the questionnaire covers only conceptually related scales for calculating response style. In large
item sets pertaining to many different areas, by contrast, response bias can more easily be separated from substantial
variation (Harzing et al., 2009). This is due to the fact that substantial answers are more likely to diverge in different
directions, whereas culturally dependent response styles are constantly driven in one direction across the entire
questionnaire. In order to distinguish response style from substance most effectively, we did not use indicators of cultural
scales to compute response style indices, because the indices are related to culture in our analysis. For the same reason, we
calculated the indices with indicators that are independent of our focal constructs in the subsequent analysis
(ethnocentrism, patriotism, cosmopolitanism). To be able to use indicators independent of these scales, we applied a
long questionnaire with indicators belonging to several different scales measuring very diverse aspects. We spread the
indicators randomly to calculate response styles across the questionnaire.
The questionnaire covered several scales that are commonly applied in the international business literature, such as
the ethnocentrism, patriotism, and cosmopolitanism of the respondents (indicators taken from Cleveland & Laroche,
2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Shimp & Sharma, 1987), the general and product-specic country-of-origin image
of different target countries (indicators from Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2007) and consumer animosity (indicators
from Hoffmann, Mai, & Smirnova, 2011; Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998; Rieer & Diamantopoulos, 2007). Most of these
measures are country-specic, with each respondent assessing three target countries. The rst target country is the U.S.
(except for the U.S. sample), the second is Russia (except for the Russian sample), and the third is Germany (except for
the German and Indian samples). For the U.S., Russia and Germany, the third target country is France, and for India, it is
China.
For all indicators, we applied Likert-type rating scales because this scaling format is most widely applied in international
business research. In most previous research projects, scholars used ve-point rating scales. In this study, however, we used
seven-point scales following Harzing et al. (2009) who suggested that, on the basis of an extensive empirical examination,
seven-point scales are less vulnerable to distortion. Therefore, this scaling format may be a good basis to conservatively test
the validity of cross-national comparisons.
We chose three constructs that are relevant in international business settings to determine the degree to which
substantial relationships are distorted by culture-dependent response styles. These constructs are ethnocentrism (5 items),
patriotism (4 items), and cosmopolitanism (4 items). From the remaining set of items, we randomly selected 11 items to
compute indicators for ARS, DRS, ERS and MRS.
3.4. Validity checks
Since we need identical formats to calculate the inuence of the response tendencies, we used the same question type
and the same scaling format (seven-point rating scales) for all indicators. In order to rule out the possibility of a response
format bias distorting the ndings, we applied the single-factor test to check for common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Given that the target countries for the scales differ across the national samples, we ran
the test for each country separately. An exploratory factor analysis, including all items measured on the rating scales,
demonstrated that one general factor explains between 9.9% and 25.6% of the variance, whereas many factors (2733)
would explain between 82.7% and 87.7% of the variance. Hence, there is strong evidence that common method variance did
not inate the results.
As subjects had to answer most questions with regard to three target countries, they responded to more than a hundred
indicators in total. Therefore, we explicitly ruled out the possibility that respondent fatigue may bias the results, by testing
whether the variety of answers becomes restricted in the course of answering the questionnaire. In no country, we did nd
substantial differences in the answering variety. The standard deviation per person of the last twenty-one items (MSD = 1.62

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

819

ranging from 1.45 [Austria] to 1.99 [Russia]) is almost as high as that for the rst twenty-one answers (MSD = 1.87 ranging
from 1.76 [India] to 2.02 [France]).
3.5. Discriminant validity and cross-national measurement invariance of focal constructs
In order to ensure the validity of the substantial test, we checked for discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and
cross-national measurement invariance (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998) of the focal constructs ethnocentrism,
patriotism, and cosmopolitanism.
A conrmatory factor analysis with AMOS 18.0 (maximum likelihood estimation) across all eight samples conrms the
measurement model (x2 = 1189.21, df = 496, p  .001; x2/df = 2.40; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .04). The goodness of t-indices are
similar for individual analyses of the subsample. The analysis conrms convergent validity. In the entire sample, as well as for
each subsample individually, each indicator signicantly (p  .01) loads on the factor to which it is assigned. Furthermore,
there is internal consistency, because in the sample as a whole, the average extracted variance (AVE) is well above the
generally accepted threshold of .5, the construct reliability (CR) exceeds .6, and Cronbachs alpha (a) is higher than .7
(ethnocentrism: AVE = .51, CR = .84, a = .83; patriotism: AVE = .67, CR = .88, a = .94; cosmopolitanism: AVE = .66, CR = .91,
a = .89). According to the test suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), there is discriminant validity between the scales, since
the squared correlations (ethnocentrism/patriotism: r2 = .20; ethnocentrism/cosmopolitanism: r2 = .09; patriotism/
cosmopolitanism: r2 = .03) are lower than the average variances extracted. Analyses for each subsample also conrmed
the internal consistency and discriminant validity.
According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), this analysis also conrms the cross-cultural congural invariance of
the constructs. Congural invariance requires that the structures of salient (zero) and non-salient (zero or near zero)
loadings in the measurement models are similar across different samples. As outlined above, single-group CFAs for each
sample revealed that the specic measurement models conform to all national samples. Hence, there is full congural
invariance.
Next, a multi-group conrmatory factor analysis tested the metric invariance of the constructs. This test requires that
factor loadings do not differ across countries. A comparison of the fully relaxed model of the salient (non-zero) paths and a
model in which these paths are xed as equal across all eight samples, reveals a statistically signicant difference
(Dx2 = 271.03; Ddf = 70; p  .001). Note that the literature generally conrms that full metric invariance is scientically
unrealistic (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989; Horn, McArdle, & Mason, 1983; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). To test
how strongly the measurement model diverges from full invariance, we tested 80 models. In each model, one loading was
allowed to vary freely in one of the eight samples (10 paths  8 countries). In sum, we found statistically signicant
differences in 21 paths (26%; p  .05). Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) argue that only highly signicant (p  .01)
differences should be considered. With regard to this criterion, we found only 12 deviations (15%). Additionally, there is no
systematic pattern. The relaxed paths are randomly spread across samples and indicators. Note that, additionally, all nonsalient paths (zero or non-zero) are equal across the samples. Hence, there is partial metric invariance with a relatively low
level of variance, which allows cross-cultural comparisons.
4. Culture-dependent response styles
4.1. National differences
We rst identied answering tendencies for each study participant individually. We then calculated the means for the
national samples. As expected, the answering tendencies varied across the eight countries (Fig. 1). ANOVA reveals that there
are signicant differences across countries for the acquiescence response style (F(7, 1017) = 28.253, p  .001),
disacquiescence response style (F(7, 1017) = 14.584, p  .001) and midpoint response style (F(7, 1017) = 8.545, p  .001).
The effects of ARS (h2 = 163) and DRS (h2 = .091) are moderate. The magnitude of the MRS effect is weak (MRS: h2 = .056).
There are no differences in extreme response styles (F(7, 1017) = .351, n.s.). These ndings are highly consistent with prior
work on response bias. Note that we used seven-point scales, which provide more options than ve-point scales. With sevenpoint scales, ERS occurs less often, because respondents are able to state mild disagreement (2) or agreement (6). MRS is less
likely, because respondents tend to use 3 and 5, instead of choosing the midpoint. In fact, previous research found a
strong decrease in ERS (Clarke, 2001; Harzing et al., 2009; Hui & Triandis, 1989) and a slight decrease in MRS when larger
scales are used (Harzing et al., 2009).
Next, we performed the post hoc StudentNewmanKeuls test (SNK) to identify patterns of countries that do not
differ in their degree of response style. SNK groups country samples that do not differ statistically signicantly with
respect to a specic response tendency. In this way, we detect countries that do not need to be singled out with respect
to a specic answering tendency. Survey data of countries in the same group are biased in a similar manner, so that
comparisons of countries in the same group are less distorted. Cross-cultural research could therefore be conducted in
these countries without correcting for the specic answering tendency. It is also important that the SNK can assign a
country to multiple groups. Consequently, this country would not diverge from all other countries in the multiple
groups to which it is assigned. However, the remaining countries in these groups differ from each other, if not grouped
together.

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

820

ARS

DRS
U.S.

.29 (.12)

India
Russia

Germany

.24 (.11)

Mexico

.23 (.13)

Russia

France

.23 (.08)

Spain

Spain
Austria

.32 (.16)
.31 (.17)

Mexico

.15 (.07)

France

Germany

.15 (.08)

India

.20

.37 (.18)
.34 (.12)

Austria

.20 (.09)
.18 (.08)

U.S.

.10

.42 (.16)

.30

.40

.10

.28 (.18)
.27 (.15)

.26 (.11)
.20

.30

.40

ERS

MRS

Russia

.29 (.22)

Austria

.28 (.20)

U.S.

.29 (.23)

France

.28 (.20)

Germany
France

.28 (.21)

Spain

.28 (.18)

Germany

Mexico

.27 (.24)

Mexico

Spain

.27 (.22)

U.S.

Austria

.10

India

.27 (.22)

India

Russia

.27 (.20)

.20

.30

.40

.10

.25 (.23)
.22 (.21)
.21 (.20)
.18 (.16)
.17 (.16)
.15 (.17)

.20

.30

.40

Fig. 1. Response style means by countries. Notes. Standard deviation in brackets.

Because the analysis detects no overall differences for ERS, we did not perform post hoc tests regarding ERS. The SNK with
a signicance level of a = .05 conrms that there are groups of countries that do not vary in their intensity of ARS, DRS, and
MRS. With regard to ARS, there are four groups (1: Germany, U.S., Austria, p = .116; 2: Austria, Spain, p = .209; 3: France,
Mexico, Russia, p = .493; 4: India).2 There are ve groups for DRS (1: India, France, Mexico, p = .479; 2: France, Mexico,
Austria, Spain, p = .109; 3: Austria, Spain, Russia, p = .085; 4: Russia, Germany, p = .085; 5: U.S.). Regarding MRS, the analysis
detects three homogeneous groups (1: Russia, India, U.S., p = .445; 2: India, U.S., Mexico, Germany, p = .160; 3: Mexico,
Germany, Spain, France, Austria, p = .055). While individualism/collectivism is the most relevant cultural dimension in most
cross-cultural studies, the groupings for MRS demonstrate that individualistic (e.g., U.S.) and collectivistic (e.g., Russia, India)
countries are mixed up. This indicates that cultural dimensions other than individualism/collectivism are probably more
relevant to the degree of MRS. In the next section, we analyze the cultural inuence on the response styles.
4.2. Cultural imprint of response styles
We now examine the relationship between response styles and cultural dimensions. Again, we use the aggregated
response styles at a national level. Additionally, we apply cultural indices at a national level, according to Hofstede (2001)
and GLOBE (House et al., 2004). The GLOBE indices are measured at societal, as well as organizational levels. Since our
primary data was collected in terms of general national samples and not within specic rms, we only consider the GLOBE
societal scores. We used GLOBE cultural values and practices. The cultural indices from Hofstede and GLOBE are based on
aggregated answers. We checked the inuence of these cultural proles on response styles at a national level (aggregated
means). Hence, the analysis of relationships is on both sides (culture and response style) at the same level of aggregation,
ensuring that there is no ecological fallacy bias. Since data stem from different sources (cultural value scores of large-scale
research projects vs. respondents of our survey), it is impossible that common method variance biases the analysis.
Due to the small number of countries, we performed a nonparametric bootstrapping procedure to generate relatively
robust ndings (Davison & Hinkley, 1997; Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). This procedure does not require any assumptions about
the distribution of the population. We drew 1000 repeated samples from the original sample to assess condence intervals
for the estimates of all parameters. To avoid misinterpretations due to the small sample, we interpret only relationships
which are statistically signicant in the bootstrapping analysis with at least a medium effect (r  .50). These correlations are
bold in Table 4.

Note that the groups of the SNK should not be interpreted as distinct clusters. Some countries may therefore belong to different groups.

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

821

Table 4
Correlations between response styles and cultural dimensions at a national level.
Concept

Cultural dimension

ARS

DRS

ERS

MRS

GLOBE practices

Assertiveness
Institutional collectivism
In-group collectivism
Future orientation
Gender egalitarism
Humane orientation
Performance orientation
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance

.877
.333
.810
.489
.130
.508
.549
.274
.550

.523
.184
.631
.258
.006
.348
.179
.009
.292

.078
.265
.372
.216
.593
.141
.156
.483
.030

.609
.060
.445
.409
.012
.287
.699
.236
.559

GLOBE values

Assertiveness
Institutional collectivism
In-group collectivism
Future orientation
Gender egalitarism
Humane orientation
Performance orientation
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance

.249
.122
.061
.522
.934
.398
.686
.009
.716

.270
.169
.029
.452
.674
.259
.433
.045
.578

.429
.307
.289
.291
.119
.426
.089
.469
.129

.167
.493
.033
.351
.409
.476
.525
.154
.325

Hofstede

Power distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance

.784
.612
.402
.019

.458
.514
.190
.169

.116
.392
.289
.005

.544
.296
.291
.332

Notes. Marked bold if meaningful relationship according to the following criteria: r  .5 and statistically signicant (p  .05) on basis of bootstrapping with
1000 samples.

In line with extant studies, this examination reveals several cultural inuences on ARS. Additionally, the analysis
demonstrates some inuences on DRS and MRS. Obviously, the cultural background of a respondent may stimulate a
preference to answer in the afrmative, to disagree, or to favor the midpoint of a scale. There is, however, no cultural
inuence on the tendency to choose extreme points (ERS) independently of their valence. Given that we considered sevenpoint rating scales, this result is in line with previous ndings (Clarke, 2001; Harzing et al., 2009; Hui & Triandis, 1989).
As the following discussion of the most relevant results illustrates, the relationships found are plausible from a theoretical
perspective. Hofstedes power distance correlates positively with ARS and negatively with MRS. Members of societies that
expect and accept unbalanced power tend to agree to statements, regardless of their content (Hofstede, 2001). Presumably, they
consciously or unconsciously fear that their responses may have negative consequences for them. To express submissiveness to
their superiors, they avoid contradicting them, and thus display acquiescence. By contrast, assertive societies encourage their
members to be competitive and to demonstrate tough behavior. Hence, such people are more likely to disagree with
statements in surveys. Accordingly, GLOBE assertiveness practices correlate negatively with ARS and positively with DRS.
GLOBE in-group collectivism practices are positively related to ARS and negatively related to DRS. In-group collectivism
describes the extent to which individuals express their loyalty toward other members of their family and peers. The behavior
of these societies members is more likely to preserve harmony and not to contradict (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii, & Bechtold,
2004). The norms of the group are more important than individual opinions. Hence, they are prone to an acquiescence
response style. Conversely, the more people are independent, the less they feel a need to conform and to afrm statements.
Likewise, individualism measured by Hofstede (=which is the inverse concept of collectivism) is negatively correlated with
ARS and positively related to DRS.
Performance orientation is negatively related to ARS and positively to MRS. Respondents from societies that strongly
encourage innovation and performance (e.g., Germany, the U.S. and Austria) do not tend to answer in the afrmative,
regardless of their content. They prefer to think themselves rather than simply agreeing with a given statement. GLOBE
future orientation values are positively correlated with ARS. Future orientation describes how members of societies think in
the future. Presumably, living mentally in the future allows people to be more afrmative in the present. Additionally,
GLOBE gender egalitarianism values are related to response styles. Societies that do not accept male dominance tend to adopt
a disacquiescence response style and avoid acquiescence. Members of these societies are more active, vocal and open to
change (Emrich, Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2004). They are skeptical and question the status quo. Accordingly, they reject
given statements more easily than individuals from countries with lower gender egalitarianism scores.
GLOBE uncertainty avoidance values are positively related to ARS and negatively related to DRS. Societies with high
uncertainty avoidance scores are characterized by a high level of anxiety that reects the individual needs to avoid
uncertainty through explicit rules (Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004). Hence, members of these societies conrm rather than
contradict statements. Since most questionnaires based on rating scales provide no space to explain contradictory responses,
this creates an ambiguous situation which these individuals tend to avoid. Remarkably, GLOBE uncertainty avoidance
practices are negatively correlated with ARS. Extant research also provides evidence of a positive (Harzing, 2006; Smith,
2004), as well as a negative relationship (Johnson et al., 2005) between uncertainty avoidance and ARS. Generally, the GLOBE

822

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

study also revealed several negative relationships between values and practices (House et al., 2004). From a theoretical
perspective, the seemingly contradictory ndings can be solved by Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and Houses (2006)
deprivation hypothesis. In societies that are already performing the desired action (high practice score), the increment is
smaller than that of societies with lower practice scores. Since the latter strive strongly toward improvement (very high
value score), values and practices are negatively related.
5. Impact of response styles on substantial relationships
So far, we have shown that the culture-dependent response styles are largely consistent with previous ndings and in line
with theoretical reasoning. On this robust basis, we now answer our main research question, namely the degree to which
response styles distort substantial ndings of cross-cultural studies. We explore the impact on the ndings of correlation
studies, as well as mean comparisons across countries. To this end, we consider three pivotal constructs of cross-cultural
research: ethnocentrism, patriotism, and cosmopolitanism.
To control for response styles, we partial out the inuence of the response tendencies from these constructs. Therefore,
we rst run OLS regression analysis that regressed ethnocentrism, patriotism, and cosmopolitanism (=dependent variables)
respectively on response style indices (=independent variables), yielding the following coefcients: ethnocentrism (single
regressions: ARS: b = .048, n.s.; DRS: b = .171, p  .001; MRS: b = .085, p  .01; multiple regression: R = .173), patriotism
(single regressions: ARS: b = .062, p  .05; DRS: b = .059, p  .10; MRS: b = .063, p  .05; multiple regression: R = .143), and
cosmopolitanism (single regressions: ARS: b = .210, p  .001; DRS: b = .003, n.s.; MRS: b = .014, n.s.; multiple regression:
R = .291). We use the residuals of the single linear regressions to estimate scales corrected by ARS, DRS, and MRS,
respectively. We also run a multiple regression that includes ARS, DRS, and MRS simultaneously to produce data corrected
jointly for the three response styles.
5.1. Correlation analysis for the whole sample
First, we consider the effects of response styles for the entire sample without distinguishing between different nations.
The ndings of this analysis are relevant for researchers who gather data in several countries and then treat them as one data
set. As a baseline, we examine the rst-order correlations between ethnocentrism, patriotism, and cosmopolitanism without
partialling out response styles. As expected, ethnocentrism and patriotism are positively correlated. By contrast, there is a
negative relationship between cosmopolitanism and the other two constructs (Table 5).
Rerunning the correlation analysis with the corrected scales reveals no relevant inuence of the response-styles. The
valence of the correlations never changes and the magnitude of the difference is minimal (ranging von Dr = .000 to Dr = .017).
In conclusion, our analysis of the whole sample highlights that response styles though dependent on culture do not
dramatically affect correlations between focal constructs.
5.2. Correlation analysis at the national level
Next, we explore the impact of response styles on substantial relationships separately for each nation. Hence, we consider
an issue that is relevant when country serves as a moderating variable and the strength of relationships is compared across
countries. Table 6 displays the differences between unadjusted and adjusted correlations for each pair of variables, for each
country, and for each type of correction. Additionally, Table 7 displays the mean differences between unadjusted and
adjusted correlations for each country, and for each type of correction. Obviously, ARS and DRS cause the most pronounced
distortions, whereas the inuence of MRS is generally very low. Hence, we advise scholars to control at least for (dis)acquiescence response styles before running substantial analyses.
Response style corrections are vital for survey research, if the values of adjusted and unadjusted parameters differ
markedly. In the following sections, we consider a change of Dr  .025 as relevant. This is a rather arbitrary threshold which
we selected as a conservative threshold that classies even small changes as important. Distortions are even more evident if
the valance of the relationship changes (positive vs. negative sign). We describe and give examples of the most problematic
response styles for each nation separately.

Table 5
Correlation analysis of unadjusted and adjusted constructs.
Not adjusted

Adjusted
DRS

ARS

Ethnocentrism/patriotism
Ethnocentrism/cosmopolitanism
Patriotism/cosmopolitanism

.393
.245
.126

MRS

ARS/DRS/MRS

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

.392
.261
.143

.001
.016
.017

.390
.254
.122

.003
.009
.004

.401
.247
.126

.008
.002
.000

.390
.258
.120

.003
.013
.006

Notes. r = Pearson-Product-Moment-Correlation, Dr = difference to unadjusted r.

Table 6
Correlation analysis at a national level.
Not adjusted

Adjusted
ARS

DRS

MRS

ARS/DRS/MRS

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.315**
.192*
.149

.323**
.196*
.150

.008
.004
.001

.334**
.248**
.174

.019
.056
.025

.306*
.201*
.141

.009
.009
.008

.327**
.228*
.155

.012
.036
.006

France

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.156
.137
.083

.154
.131
.131

.002
.006
.048

.151
.185*
.052

.005
.048
.031

.171
.146
.076

.015
.009
.007

.162
.183*
.077

.006
.046
.006

Germany

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.099
.224**
.135

.097
.240**
.180*

.002
.016
.045

.096
.208**
.146

.003
.016
.011

.112
.222*
.140

.013
.002
.005

.091
.213**
.156*

.008
.011
.021

India

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.271**
.035
.381**

.248*
.111
.359**

.023
.076
.022

.262**
.062
.378**

.009
.027
.003

.263*
.029
.372*

.008
.006
.009

.253**
.104
.353**

.018
.069
.028

Mexico

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.548**
.024
.207

.555**
.025
.252*

.007
.001
.045

.543**
.048
.205

.005
.072
.002

.522*
.017
.209

.026
.007
.002

.545**
.029
.243*

.003
.053
.036

Russia

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.494**
.170*
.128

.499**
.162*
.155

.005
.008
.027

.495**
.150*
.092

.001
.020
.036

.497*
.168*
.168*

.003
.002
.040

.499**
.137
.069

.005
.033
.059

Spain

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.398**
.552**
.302**

.407**
.546**
.265**

.009
.006
.037

.423**
.561**
.314**

.025
.009
.012

.412*
.552*
.309*

.014
.000
.007

.433**
.567**
.285**

.035
.015
.017

U.S.

Ethno/Patr
Ethno/Cosmo
Patr/Cosmo

.250**
.176
.167

.254**
.161
.177

.004
.015
.010

.257**
.124
.142

.007
.052
.025

.263*
.175
.166

.013
.001
.001

.243**
.087
.125

.007
.089
.042

Difference to not adjusted

Min
Max
Mean
SD

.001
.076
.018
.019

.001
.072
.022
.019

.000
.040
.009
.009

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

Austria

.003
.089
.028
.023

Notes. Ethno = ethnocentrism, Patr = patriotism, Cosmo = cosmopolitanism, r = Pearson-Product-Moment-Correlation, Dr = difference to unadjusted r.
Level of signicance:
* p  .05.
** p  .01.

823

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

824

Table 7
Mean differences between adjusted and unadjusted correlations at a national level.

U.S.
India
Russia
Mexico
Spain
France
Austria
Germany

ARS Dr

DRS Dr

MRS Dr

ARS/DRS/MRS Dr

.010
.040
.014
.018
.017
.019
.004
.021

.028
.013
.019
.026
.015
.028
.033
.010

.005
.008
.015
.012
.007
.010
.009
.007

.046
.038
.033
.031
.022
.019
.018
.013

Note. The most relevant differences are displayed in bold gures (Dr  .25).

Within the U.S. sample, there is the strongest deviation between unadjusted and the adjusted correlations. After
correcting for ARS, DRS, and MRS conjointly, there is a mean difference of Dr = .046. The strongest inuence is due to DRS
(mean Dr = .028). Although not statistically signicant, the magnitude of the correlation between ethnocentrism and
cosmopolitanism changes by Dr = .089.
In the Indian sample, there are also deviations between the unadjusted and adjusted parameters (mean Dr = .038 when
correcting for ARS, DRS, and MRS conjointly). In particular, ARS distorts the ndings (mean Dr = .040). Again, the strongest
deviation is in the relationship between ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism, which changes by Dr = .069.
In the Russian data, there is a weak inuence of response styles, if DRS, ARS, and MRS are considered jointly (mean
Dr = .033). The most relevant effects (ARS-corrected: Dr = .027; DRS-corrected: Dr = .036; MRS-corrected: Dr = .040) are on
the relationship between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. Apparently, response bias causes an overestimation of
correlation coefcients for the Russian respondents (particularly for the construct cosmopolitism). For example, the
signicant relationship between cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism (r = .170) becomes insignicant when correcting for
all response styles (r = .137).
The Mexican survey data are also distorted by the joint inuence of ARS, DRS, and MRS (mean Dr = .031), with DRS exerting
the most important inuence (mean Dr = .026). The Mexican subsample provides evidence that neglecting response style
correction can also lead to an underestimation of important relationships. For instance, the unadjusted correlation between
patriotism and cosmopolitanism is insignicant. This relationship becomes signicant when adjusting for ARS (r = .252) and
for all response styles (r = .243).
In Spain, there is a relatively low inuence of the corrections (mean Dr = .022). Yet, some relationships are affected by
response styles. For example, the unadjusted correlation between patriotism and cosmopolitanism (r = .302) differs from
the correlations which are adjusted by ARS (r = .265, Dr = .037).
In France, the most severe bias is DRS (mean Dr = .028). The unadjusted relationship between ethnocentrism and
cosmopolitanism is not signicant (r = .137). However, it becomes signicant when adjusting for DRS (r = .185, Dr = .048)
and for all response styles (r = .183, Dr = .046).
In the Austrian sample as well, DRS causes the most severe bias (mean Dr = .033). For example, the unadjusted correlation
of ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism is r = .192, while the DRS-corrected correlation is markedly stronger (r = .248).
Hence, researchers need to correct data collected in Austria for a disacquiescence response style, before running substantial
analysis.
Finally, response styles barely distort ndings that are based on the German data set. Nonetheless, in some cases, ARS
might cause bias. The analysis reveals that some correlations change after having controlled for ARS. The unadjusted
relationship between patriotism and cosmopolitanism (r = .135) is not statistically signicant, while the ARS-adjusted one
is both stronger and signicant (r = .180, Dr = .045).
5.3. Impact on mean comparisons
Finally, we check whether response styles affect the results of mean comparisons across countries. We consider pairwise mean differences (Table 8). We rst look at the mean difference based on the original data and consider whether this
difference is signicant. We then look at the mean difference of the corrected scales. Due to space limitations, we report
only the scales corrected simultaneously for ARS, DRS and MRS. However, the results are similar when taking into account
one response style indicator individually. We ran 74 comparisons including all combinations of the three focal constructs
and all combinations of pair-wise country comparisons. In total, we found that the analyses turned from statistically
insignicant to signicant (a < .05) in only three comparisons when correcting for the response styles. A signicant
comparison never became insignicant when controlling for answering tendencies. In only four cases did the sign of the
mean comparison change meaning. However, in all of these cases, the difference was not statistically signicant for either
the original or for the corrected scales. All in all, we found that response styles have only a small inuence on the results of
mean comparisons.

Table 8
Inuence of culture-dependent response styles of mean comparisons.
Country

Ethnocentrism

#1

#2

Not adjusted

Adjusted

Patriotism

DM

DM

val

Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
Austria
France
France
France
France
France
France
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
India
India
India
India
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Russia
Russia
Spain

France
Germany
India
Mexico
Russia
Spain
U.S.
Germany
India
Mexico
Russia
Spain
U.S.
India
Mexico
Russia
Spain
U.S.
Mexico
Russia
Spain
U.S.
Russia
Spain
U.S.
Spain
U.S.
U.S.

1.006
.981
.097
.008
1.071
.818
1.493
.024
.908
.997
.066
.188
.487
.884
.973
.090
.164
.512
.089
.974
.720
1.396
1.063
.809
1.485
.254
.421
.675

.000
.000
.581
.965
.000
.000
.000
.875
.000
.000
.668
.238
.004
.000
.000
.516
.261
.001
.640
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.079
.007
.000

1.004
.946
.031
.032
.993
.797
1.433
.059
.974
1.036
.011
.208
.428
.915
.977
.048
.149
.487
.062
.962
.766
1.402
1.025
.828
1.464
.197
.439
.636

.000
.000
.861
.866
.000
.000
.000
.704
.000
.000
.942
.192
.012
.000
.000
.731
.305
.002
.743
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.172
.005
.000

Yes

Yes

Change

Cosmopolitanism

Not adjusted

Adjusted

Change

Not adjusted

Adjusted

Change

DM

DM

val

DM

DM

val

.976
1.084
.676
.444
.555
.370
.670
.107
1.652
1.421
.421
.606
.307
1.760
1.528
.529
.714
.414
.231
1.231
1.046
1.345
.999
.814
1.114
.185
.115
.300

.000
.000
.000
.021
.001
.026
.000
.499
.000
.000
.008
.000
.080
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.236
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.211
.474
.072

1.008
1.078
.505
.338
.647
.397
.644
.070
1.514
1.346
.362
.611
.364
1.584
1.416
.432
.681
.434
.167
1.152
.902
1.150
.985
.735
.982
.250
.002
.247

.000
.000
.005
.079
.000
.017
.000
.659
.000
.000
.022
.000
.038
.000
.000
.002
.000
.007
.391
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.092
.989
.138

Yes

Yes

1.121
.249
.475
.434
.217
.648
.958
.872
.646
1.555
.904
.473
.163
.226
.683
.032
.399
.709
.909
.258
.173
.482
.651
1.082
1.391
.431
.741
.310

.000
.029
.000
.001
.055
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.185
.052
.000
.752
.000
.000
.000
.025
.150
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.008

1.004
.327
.349
.470
.140
.634
1.019
.677
.655
1.474
.864
.370
.015
.022
.797
.187
.307
.692
.820
.209
.284
.670
.610
1.104
1.489
.494
.879
.385

.000
.003
.004
.000
.190
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.898
.840
.000
.050
.002
.000
.000
.056
.012
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001

Yes

Yes

Yes

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

Country

Notes. DM = differences of means between the country named rst and the country named second. Adjusted = inuences of the response styles ARS, DRS, and MRS are partialled out. val = valence ! sign (positive/
negative) of DM between adjusted and unadjusted scores. p = signicance of DM between adjusted and unadjusted scores (threshold of p = .05).

825

826

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

6. Conclusions
Many cross-cultural business studies still do not control for response styles. However, there are repeated claims in the
literature that researchers should do so. Since extant studies stress that culture affects response styles, it is reasonable to
conclude that study ndings might be distorted by culture-dependent response styles. Our ndings contradict this
conventional wisdom. On the basis of broad empirical ndings, we reveal that even though the effect of culture on response
styles is signicant, the inuence on substantial relationships is less severe than commonly expected. Although there are
culture-dependent response styles, the effects on mean comparisons and correlation analyses are relatively small. Therefore,
the present paper makes a methodological contribution to the literature, with compelling implications for research practice
and the empirical testing of theories.
The present study demonstrates that there are remarkable differences in response styles across different nations. These
differences are at least partly due to the cultural orientation of the various national groups. Our ndings about the cultural
dependency of response styles are largely consistent with theory and empirical results of previous studies. Building on these
stable ndings, the present paper primarily strives to answer the question of whether country-specic differences in
response styles affect the substantial ndings of cross-national research. Notably, the extent of distortion in correlative
studies is less severe than expected, and our analysis suggests that response styles are only a minor methodological threat.
Distortions in mean comparisons are even less severe. Nonetheless, some examinations reveal differences between the
unadjusted and the adjusted scales. Hence, although in most circumstances, culture-dependent response styles seem to
cause no major distortion, scholars would still be well advised to control for response-style biases before performing further
statistical analysis. This investigation demonstrates that, in some cases, omitting to correct answering tendencies can lead to
the overestimation of substantial relationships in some cultures, whereas they are underestimated in others. The degree to
which survey data are distorted depends on the country sample and its specic tendency toward response bias. Hence,
although the likelihood of severe distortion is generally low, there is no guarantee of drawing valid cross-cultural
conclusions, without controlling for response styles. In line with previous research, the most important response style bias is
(dis-)acquiescence. We therefore recommend checking whether or not ARS and DRS distort the ndings in any national and
cross-national study. ARS is particularly strong in collectivistic countries with a high level of power distance and low level of
assertiveness. If sample countries t this prole, a correction for ARS is essential. DRS is strong in cultures with the opposite
cultural prole. In these cultures, we suggest controlling for DRS.
In order to be able to control for response styles, we propose that international business researchers should include items
in their questionnaires that are conceptually unrelated to the object of investigation. These items may be used to calculate
response style indicators that are independent of their focal construct. In this way, they can disentangle substantial effects
and response bias.
7. Further research
Like all empirical research, our study is limited in some respects. The nations we surveyed cover six cultural clusters
suggested by project GLOBE, including the Anglo countries, Latin America, Latin Europe, Germanic Europe, Eastern Europe,
and the Southern Asia cluster. Although our approach is wider than that of previous studies, not all cultural clusters are
included. Note however, that the objective of this study is not to assess the characteristic response styles of certain regions,
but to relate response styles to cultural dimensions. Even if our study does not cover a specic region, international business
researchers and practitioners can conclude, on basis of the reported relationships (Table 4) and the cultural prole of the
focal region (provided by Hofstede or GLOBE), what prevalent response styles are to be expected in a given region.
Nonetheless, to provide more valid conclusions and to establish external validity, we call for replications and extensions of
our ndings in the cultural clusters not yet considered.
Furthermore, we used seven-point scales, because they provide more options than those with less differentiation. Extant
studies reveal that the number of scaling points affects the magnitude of various response styles (Clarke, 2001; Harzing et al.,
2009; Hui & Triandis, 1989). Hence, we recommend future research that replicates our study with other scaling formats. In
particular, analysis with ve-point-scales is needed since they are often applied in survey research. ERS and MRS might be
more relevant in this context.
Finally, this study analyzed the relationship between culture and response style at a national level, using aggregated
response styles (means) for the national subsamples. However, within any given culture, there might be intra-cultural and
inter-individual variations. For this reason, we suggest replicating our ndings using scales for individual culture, such as the
CVSCALE (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011) or independent and interdependent self-construals (Singelis, 1994). Moreover,
the interaction effect of national culture at an aggregated level with individual characteristics (e.g., personality) on response
styles could be analyzed using multi-level approaches (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001).
References
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143
156.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185216.

S. Hoffmann et al. / International Business Review 22 (2013) 814827

827

Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement
invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456466.
Clarke, I., III (2001). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. International Marketing Review, 18(3), 301324.
Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Scale development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3),
249259.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative
Management, 3, 127150.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman Hall.
Emrich, C. G., Denmark, F. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Cross-cultural differences in gender egalitarianism: Implications for societies, organizations, and leaders.
In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 343394).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classication of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 263282.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
3950.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D. J. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta
(Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 437512). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gooderham, P., & Nordhaug, O. (2001). Are cultural differences in Europe on the decline? European Business Forum, 8, 4853.
Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 178218). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 122151). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harley, J. R. (1998). Timidity as a response style to psychological questionnaire. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 32(2), 201210.
Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Response style in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 6(2), 243266.
Harzing, A.-W., Baldueza, J., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Barzantny, C., Canabal, A., Davila, A., et al. (2009). Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce
response and language bias in cross-national research? International Business Review, 18, 417432.
Hoffmann, S., Mai, R., & Smirnova, M. (2011). Development and validation of a cross-nationally stable scale of consumer animosity. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 235252.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations. Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Horn, J. L., McArdle, J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientists look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. The Southern
Psychologist, 1, 179188.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. Q. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project
GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 310.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296309.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Perspective, 20, 6790.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 36(2), 264277.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the Peoples Republic of China. Journal of
Marketing, 62(1), 89100.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2), 257274.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical investigation of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(2), 296309.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstedes model of national differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89118.
Nakata, C., & Hung, Y. (2005). Progress and promise: The last decade of international marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 611618.
Okazaki, S., & Mueller, B. (2007). Cross-cultural advertising research: Where we have been and where we need to go. International Marketing Review, 24(5), 499518.
Okazaki, S., Taylor, C. R., & Doh, J. P. (2007). Market convergence and advertising standardization in the European Union. Journal of World Business, 42(4), 384400.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships and implications for international marketing.
Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726745.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rieer, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Consumer animosity: A literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement. International Marketing Review, 24(1),
87119.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of value. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandies, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85115). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280289.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580591.
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 5061.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 7890.
Sully de Luque, M., & Javidan, M. (2004). Uncertainty avoidance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 602653). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of the basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Crosscultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 6095). London: MacMillan.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gap and recommendations. Journal of
Management, 33, 426478.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 3351.
van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. P., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response style in rating scales. Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 35(3), 346360.
Weijters, P., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2008). Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3),
409422.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2002). A review on Geert Hofstedes book titled cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organization across
nations, 2nd ed.. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 388389.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstedes ve dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of
CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(34), 193210.