Correcting Big Five Personality Measurements for Acquiescence: An 18–Country Cross

Abstract

For groups of persons with low or medium levels of education, Big Five personality scales typically yield scores that poorly replicate the idealized Big Five factor pattern. On the basis of representative samples of German adults, Rammstedt et al. have demonstrated that correcting each person's score for acquiescence eliminates this problem. In the present 18–country study using large samples representative of each country's adult population, we found that, in all cases, correcting for acquiescence did indeed improve the congruence of factor loadings with an idealized Big Five pattern. However, although this correction led to acceptably high correspondence levels in all countries classified as individualistic, this was not always true for non–individualistic countries. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords

Big Five cross-cultural acquiescence factor structure education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allik

, & McCrae

R. R.

(2004). Escapable conclusions: Toomela (2003) and the universality of trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 261–265.

Ayidiya

S. A.

, & McClendon

M. J.

(1990). Response effects in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229–247.

Benet–Martínez

, & John

O. P.

(1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.

Church

T. A.

, & Katigbak

M. S.

(2000). Trait psychology in the Philippines. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 73–94.

Clarke

III . (2001). Extreme response style in cross–cultural research. International Marketing Review, 18, 301–324.

Clemans

W. V.

(1966). An analytical and empirical examination of some properties of ipsative measures. Richmond: The William Byrd Press.

Cunningham

, Cunningham

I. C. M.

, & Green

R. T.

(1977). The ipsative process to reduce response set bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 379–394.

De Raad

(2000). The Big Five personality factors: The psycholexical approach to personality. Ashland, Ohio: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

De Raad

, Perugini

, Hrebickova

, & Szarota

(1998). Lingua Franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 29, 212–232.

10.

Diamantopoulos

, Reynolds

N. L.

, & Simintiras

A. C.

(2006). The impact of response styles on the stability of cross–national comparisons. Journal of Business Research, 59, 925–935.

11.

Fischer

(2004). Standardization to account for cross–cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 35, 263–282.

12.

Flavell

J. H.

, Miller

P. H.

, & Miller

S. A.

(1993). Cognitive developments. Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice–Hall.

13.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1963). A model of item ambiguity in personality assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 467–492.

14.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big–Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

15.

Greenfield

(1999). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Where can they go? Presented at 3rd Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Taiwan.

16.

Guanzon–Lapena

M. A.

, Church

A. T.

, Carlota

A. J.

, & Katigbak

M. S.

(1998). Indigenous personality measures: Philippine examples. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 29, 249–270.

17.

Haller

, Jowell

, & Smith

T. W.

(Eds.). (2009). Charting the globe: The International Social Survey Programme, 1984–2009. London: Routledge.

18.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture's consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

19.

Hofstede

, & Hofstede

G.–J.

(2004). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw–Hill.

20.

Jackson

D. N.

, & Messick

(1958). Content and style in personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 243–252.

21.

Javeline

(1999). Response effects in polite cultures: A test of acquiescence in Kazakhstan. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 1–28.

22.

John

O. P.

, Donahue

E. M.

, & Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The “Big Five” Inventory — Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

23.

John

O. P.

, Naumann

L. P.

, & Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big–Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

, Robins

R. W.

, & Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.

24.

Johnson

, Kulesa

, Cho

Y. I.

, & Shavitt

(2005). The relationship between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 36, 264–277.

25.

Krosnick

J. A.

, Narayan

, & Smith

W. R.

(1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Evaluation, 70, 29–44.

26.

Lang

F. R.

, Lüdtke

, & Asendorpf

(2001). Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen. [Validity and psychometric equivalence of the German version of the Big Five Inventory in young, middle–aged and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47, 111–112.

27.

Lorenzo–Seva

, & Ten Berge

J. M. F.

(2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57–64.

28.

McClendon

M. J.

(1991). Acquiescence: Tests of the cognitive limitations and question ambiguity hypotheses. Journal of Official Statistics, 7, 153–166.

29.

McCrae

R. R.

, Zonderman

A. B.

, Costa

P. T.

Jr. , Bond

M. H.

, & Paunonen

S. V.

(1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.

30.

Meisenberg

, & Williams

(2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539–1550.

31.

Mirowsky

, & Ross

C. E.

(1991). Eliminating defense and agreement bias from measures of the sense of control: A 2 × 2 index. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 127–145.

32.

Narayan

, & Krosnick

J. A.

(1996). Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 58–88.

33.

Ostendorf

(1990). Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur. Zur Validität des Fünf–Faktoren–Modells der Persönlichkeit. [Language and personality structure. On the structural validity of the Five Factor Model of personality]. Regensburg: Roderer.

34.

Rammstedt

(1997). Die deutsche Version des Big Five Inventories (BFI): Übersetzung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung des Fünf–Faktoren–Modells der Persönlichkeit [The German version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI): Translation and validation of a questionnaire for the measurement of the Five Factor model of personality]. Unpublished thesis, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.

35.

Rammstedt

(2012). The effects of acquiescence on the Big Five personality structure. Manuscript in preparation.

36.

Rammstedt

, & John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10–item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.

37.

Rammstedt

, & Kemper

C. J.

(2011). Measurement equivalence of the Big Five: Shedding further light on potential causes of the educational bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 121–125.

38.

Rammstedt

, & Krebs

(2007). Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? Assessing the Big Five dimensions of personality with different response scales in a dependent sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 32–38.

39.

Rammstedt

, Goldberg

L. R.

, & Borg

(2010). The measurement equivalence of Big–Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61.

40.

Scholz

, Harkness

, & Faass

(2008): ISSP study monitoring 2004, report to the ISSP General Assembly on monitoring work undertaken for the ISSP. GESIS Technical Report. Mannheim: GESIS.

41.

Soto

C. J.

, John

O. P.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big–Five self–reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737.

42.

Ten Berge

J. M. F.

(1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 89–102.

43.

Toomela

(2000). Stages of mental development: Where to look? Trames: A Journal of the Humanities in Social Sciences, 4, 21–52.

44.

Toomela

(2003a). Relationship between personality structure, structure of word meaning, and cognitive ability: A study of cultural mechanisms of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 723–735.

45.

Toomela

(2003b). Development of symbol meaning and the emergence of the semiotically mediated mind. In Toomela

(Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 163–209). Westport, CA: Aplex Publishing.

46.

Winkler

J. D.

, Kanouse

D. E.

, & Ware

J. E.

(1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555–561.

Correcting Big Five Personality Measurements for Acquiescence: An 18–Country Cross–Cultural Study

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References