The great response-style myth.

Rorer, Leonard G.

doi:10.1037/h0021888

Cited by 375 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eleven of the 13 items on their measure are keyed in the same direction; only 2 items are keyed in the other direction. Although it may be that when a true-false response format is used on an unbalanced test, total score variance attributable to response bias is minimal (e.g., Rorer, 1965), it is doubtful that when a six-point format is used (as Lennox and Wolfe did), response bias will be similarly minimal (e.g., Nunnally, 1967;cf. Cronbach, 1955).…”

Section: Evaluating the Intrinsic Validity Of Alternative Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

Snyder¹,

Gangestad²

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

874

803

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive network of empirical relations has been identified in research on the psychological construct of self-monitoring. Nevertheless, in recent years some concerns have been expressed about the instrument used for the assessment of self-monitoring propensities, the Self-Monitoring Scale. Both the extent to which the measure taps an interpretable and meaningful causal variable and the extent to which the self-monitoring construct provides an appropriate theoretical understanding of this causal variable have been questioned. An examination of reanalyses of studies of self-monitoring, analyses of the internal structure of the Self-Monitoring Scale, and further relevant data suggest that the measure does tap a meaningful and interpretable causal variable with pervasive influences on social behavior, a variable reflected as a general self-monitoring factor. We discuss the evaluation and furthering of the interpretation of this latent causal variable, offer criteria for evaluating alternative measures of self-monitoring, and present a new, 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale.According to theoretical analyses of self-monitoring, people differ in the extent to which they can and do observe and control their expressive behavior and self-presentation (e.g., Snyder, 1979). Individuals high in self-monitoring are thought to regulate their expressive self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances, and thus be highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situationally appropriate performances.Individuals low in self-monitoring are thought to lack either the ability or the motivation to so regulate their expressive self-presentations. Their expressive behaviors, instead, are thought to functionally reflect their own enduring and momentary inner states, including their attitudes, traits, and feelings.A number of hypotheses-concerning, among others, the determinants of specificity and consistency in social behavior, the origins of linkages between attitudes and action, the dynamics of social interaction, and the nature and consequences of conceptions of self-have followed from these basic initial propositions. Research involving a measure of self-monitoring propensities (the Self-Monitoring Scale; for information on its reliability and validity, see Snyder, 1974) has provided empirical support for these and many more hypotheses about the cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of self-monitoring (e.g

show abstract

Section: Evaluating the Intrinsic Validity Of Alternative Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

Snyder¹,

Gangestad²

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

874

803

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A three-process response model. Past work on response style (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2001;Cronbach, 1950;Rorer, 1965;Paulhus, 1991) showed that a respondent's use of a rating scale can be determined by variables that are unrelated to the attitude being measured. For example, some respondents may avoid using extreme response categories even if they feel strongly about a topic.…”

Section: Involvement Direction and Intensity In Likert Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice.

Böckenholt

2012

Psychological Methods

151

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I show how item response models can be used to capture multiple response processes in psychological applications. Intuitive and analytical responses, agree–disagree answers, response refusals, socially desirable responding, differential item functioning, and choices among multiple options are considered. In each of these cases, I show that the response processes can be measured via pseudoitems derived from the observed responses. The estimation of these models via standard software programs that allow for missing data is also discussed. The article concludes with two detailed applications that illustrate the prevalence of multiple response processes.

show abstract

“…This real difference is likely to overwhelm what is typically a very small bias based on item directionality. The weight of past evidence together with our current analysis shows that acquiescence bias is a trivial influence in the responses to the RWA scale (Nunnally, 1978;Rorer, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a balanced, unidimensional scale, the acquiescence bias can potentially inflate correlations among pro-trait items and among con-trait items, and reduce the correlations between items with opposite wording. This tendency might be sufficient to suggest a two-factor solution in exploratory factor analysis though typically the acquiescence effect is of little substance (Nunnally, 1978;Rorer, 1965). Researchers 4 nonetheless tend to ignore factor solutions where the items heavily divided into protrait and con-trait factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%